The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About780232.tiff RESOLUTION AND ORDER RE: DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHICKEN MANURE DEHYDRATION FACILITY - ROLANDA FEEDS , INC. , 6509 WELD COUNTY ROAD 51, KEENESBURG, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statue and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affiars of Weld County, Colorado , and WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, held a public hearing on the 25th day of April, 1978 at the hour of 7 : 00 p.m. in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners , for the purpose of hearing the application of Rolanda Feeds , Inc. , 6509 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg, Colorado, 80643 , for a Special Use Permit for a Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility on the following described property: A tract of land located in the East-half of Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado and being more particularly described as follows : Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Said Section 31 and considering the East Line of Said Section 31 to bear South 00°00 ' 00" West and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto: Thence South 00°00 ' 00" West along the East Line of Said Section 31, 2752 . 65 feet; Thence North 00°00 ' 00" West, 140 . 00 Feet; Thence North 00°00 ' 00" East, 75 . 00 Feet; Thence North 87°00 ' 00" West, 1098 . 55 Feet; Thence North 00°12 ' 30" East, 2609 . 35 Feet to a point on the North Line of Said Section 31; Thence North 88°48 ' 10" East, along the North Line of Said Section 31, 1, 228 . 50 Feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 75 . 135 acres more or less including the county road rights-of-way along the northerly and easterly boundaries and 72 .415 acres more or less excluding said road rights-of-way. WHEREAS, the petitioner was present, and WHEREAS, evidence was presented by the petitioner and witnesses for the petitioner in support of the grant of this Special Use Permit, and WHEREAS, evidence was presented by surrounding property owners urging denial of the Special Use Permit on the grounds of adverse effects on the neighborhood, and n _ I )L-_4.c`)'1 780232 WHEREAS, the Board also heard evidence from staff members of the Weld County Health Department and the Colorado State Department of Health, and WHEREAS , Section 3 . 3.E. of the Weld County Zoning Reso- lution authorizes such uses in an Agricultural District upon approval by the Board of County Commissioners, after a finding that the proposed operation conforms to the requirements of Section 3. 3. E. of said Zoning Resolution, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado heard all the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the petitioner, the comments of surrounding property owners, the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, the testimony of the Colorado and Weld County Departments of Health, and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and having been fully informed and satisfied that the request, for a Special Use Permit for a Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility on the heretofore described real estate does not conform to the purposes of Section 3 . 3 .E. of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of the petitioner for a Special Use Permit for a Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility on the aforementioned tract of land, be and hereby is, denied as failing to satisfy the requirements of the Weld County Zoning Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the following findings of fact and conclusions of law be adopted to support the above denial : 1. The dehydration facility as presented by the Petitioner is not in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan states : "The expansion and development of agri-business and agriculturally oriented industry will be encouraged provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or environment. " -2- Evidence presented by the Weld County Department of Health and surrounding property owners and residents of the area shows that the proposed operation will affect the surrounding environment due to the odorous emissions from the facility. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan further states : "Because water, air, and surface pollution are a vital concern to all residents of the county, the state , and the nation, it will be the policy to encourage only those develop- ments that can show that they will not con- tribute to the pollution problem of the area that they are prepared to either build ap- propriate control devices at their own expense, or will pay sufficient revenues to the ex- isting pollution controlling district or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system." The applicant has not met its burden of proof in demon- strating that the dehydration facility will not contribute to odor pollution. Although the applicant presented evidence of the installation of extensive control devices, evidence submitted by the Weld County Department of Health and surrounding property owners and residents of the area shows that the pollution control devices installed have not eliminated the negative impacts of odors and other omissions on the surrounding properties and residents. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the standards of Section 3 . 3.E. 2 . of the Weld County Zoning Resolution relating to Special Uses. It is the finding of the Board of County Commissioners that the dehydrating facility as presented by the applicant is not compatible with surrounding area, is not in harmony of the character of the neighborhood, has an adverse effect upon the immediate area, will adversely affect the future development of the area, and is not in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. Evidence presented at the April 25 , 1978 hearing and submitted in writing to the Board of County Commissioners demonstrates that the odor control devices installed in the dehydration facility have not been effective in eliminating -3- the odor which emanates from the facility. Substantial testimony was presented by surrounding property owners and residents of the area that the odor from the facility has and will continue to have an adverse effect on the surrounding property values , and on the general quality of life in the area. In addition, evidence was presented that the operation may have adverse health effects upon inhabitants of the area who are subjected to the emissions from the plant over a period of time. Further, on January 30 , 1978, staff members of the Weld County Department of Health registered an odor intensity reading of 170 : 1 emanating from the facility; said reading corroborates the testimony of surrounding residents concerning the intensity of the odor and tends to show that the applicant will have difficulty meeting state odor standards with the existing facilities . This Board, however, specifically does not find that compliance with state health standards would result in an operation which meets the standards of Section 3. 3 .E. 2. of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. 3. The Board has received a letter dated April 25 , 1978 from the Town of Hudson, Colorado and a letter dated April 24 , 1978 from the Town of Keenesburg, Colorado, representing official action of the governing bodies of said towns, asking that the dehydration facility permit request as presented be denied by the Board due to the odor presently emitted by the facility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners , Weld County, Colorado, that the applicant, Rolanda Feeds , Inc. , be and hereby is ordered to immediately cease any and all operations of its dehydration facility on the above-described tract of land. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly -4- and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 25th day of April, A.D. , 1978 . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ✓ (Abstained) ATTEST: q Weld County Clerk and Recorder ancf\Clerk to the Bo Ld � � BY:. B t ,i 4 ,( 7?-( / Deputy Co Clerk PP OV D AS TO FORM: C � a•. ) 44-_,_._,9 County Attorney Date Presented: May 1 , 1978 -5- BEFORE THE ' D COUNTY , COLORADO PLANNI COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No . SUP #335:77: 9 Date Feb. 7, 1978 APPLICATION OF Rolanda Feeds, Inc. ADDRESS 6509 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Moved by Ben Nix that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission : Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for site approval of Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility covering the following described property in iJeld County , Colorado , to-wit : See attached be recommended (XX KXX Xy) ( unfavorably ) to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons : 1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that this Special Use Permit request for a dehydration facility at the proposed location is not in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons : A. One of the policies in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan states : "The expansion and development of agri-business and agriculturally oriented industry will be encouraged provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or environment. " It is the opinion of the Planning Commission, based on evidence submitted by surrounding property owners and residents of the area, that the applicant has not demonstrated that this enterprise Motion seconded by Irma White Vote : For Passage Chuck Carlson Against Passage Frank Suckla STATE OF COLORADO ss. Ben Nix COUNTY OF WELD Filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Jerry Kiefer FEB s 1978 Percy Hiatt 3,°,5O Fin coup CLERK KRDRCCORDER Irma White _ ay Deputy The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings . • • • __ .. T .. :. EAST . :T_ �'. LC '_vi J I f ,'U . .' fr.': 2 .✓__. i ... _ L .,(� •___.:.rs U.ii :1.�.. ..� �7K1!) .��'n li:. i I a ✓ _:1.. :A:..2 E C.7 �T � , 1 .. J i 1' _. & j:II CC° CC' 0C" 11LS O A..L' •.T'. r1321:Ai-JIGS .E : ^?,O.;G THE E„3"_' LI:,E OF ,SAID CE0TIC:: 31 , 27:'2.65 r ft ___ _ J.J' OJ" �......,.�'l 1LrG.0C _ _.E t ._ 1J l) L�_ l..�l�" ._..•'�'. 7,.0C _ r..�_; 0:(erj- I, �� II' 71i u i_ ; ?;)‘ := TO A 17'0: ----, : - -r T_ 31 ; - : ' :: T 4'i.irl _T :• 31 , 12__:;.5.7; _ ..� f 1 !s,...%.,,. v' E 3:. ?_E,�.; _ L.._ .�' �I11-. �...��...�_ 7C Tr _ _ •.�_. .. r J _._mss _ 1.._ i:-� �• .1 I L ...J_�J ,.�.i:l'. Rolanda Feeds, Inc. SUP-335:77: 9 P. C. RECOMMENDATION February 7, 1978 will not adversely affect the surrounding environment. Further, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the operation of the dehydration facility as requested will adversely affect the surrounding environment due to the odor emanating from the facility. B. Another policy of the Plan states: "Because water, air and surface pollution are of vital concern to all residents of the county, the state and the nation, it will be the policy to encourage only those developments that can show that they will not contribute to the pollution problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appropriate control devices at their own expense or will pay sufficient revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system. " It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not demonstrated that the dehydration facility will not contribute to odor pollution. Though the applicant has installed control devices, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission, based on evidence submitted by surrounding property owners and residents of the area, that the applicant has not demonstrated that the pollution control devices have eliminated the negative impacts of odors on surrounding properties. 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not demonstrated that this Special Use Permit for the dehydrating facility: A. Is compatible with the surrounding area, B. Is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood, C. Will not have an adverse effect upon the immediate area, D. Will not adversely affect the future development of the area, E. Is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the County. Rolanda Feeds, Inc. SUP-335:77 :9 P.C. RECOMMDATION February 7, 1978 This determination is based upon the volume of the public input received at the public meetings and submitted in writing indicating that the venturi scrubber installed as a part of the dehydration facility has not been effective in eliminating the odor which emanates from the facility. Testimony has been submitted by surrounding property owners that the odor has and will continue to have an adverse effect on surrounding property values and is creating a nuisance for surrounding property owners. 3. The Town of Keenesburg has indicated they recommend the Special Use Permit be denied for the following reasons which were enumerated in a letter dated January 11, 1978 : "There have been numerous complaints from concerned citizens regarding the obnoxious odor produced from this operation, also what effect the raw material will have on fly infestation in the summer months. We have been advised that scrubbers have been installed to eliminate the odor, but thus far there has not been any noticible improvement. The Town of Keenesburg is already bordered by a chicken farm, dairy farm, and a hog operation, and we feel one more operation of this nature will certainly not enhance our chances for future growth. Air pollution being a major issue everywhere, should be given top priority in making your decision. We are not anti-free enterprise, but feel the health and welfare of the people should be our major concern. Therefore we implore your careful consideration in approving this Special Use Permit. " CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , Shirley A. Phillips , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on February 7, 1978 and re- corded in Book No . VI of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated the 8 day of February 19 78 Secretary BEFORE THE Jillp COUNTY , COLORADO PLANNI COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No . SUP # 335:77: 9 Date Jan. 17, 1978 APPLICATION OF Rolanda Feeds, Inc. ADDRESS 6509 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Moved by Harry Ashley that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission : Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for site approval of Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility ccvering the following described property in Weld County , Cclorado , to-wit : See attached Table be NE dadak T YL aNan xa x Xgaga x. XMAXRKSOMANNg for the following reasons : 1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission at this time (prior to the scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 1978) , that there is inadequate evidence available to fully evaluate the possible adverse impacts to surrounding properties from any odor emission from the dehydrating facility. On November 30, 1977, the Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, issued Rolanda Feeds, Inc. an emissions permit with ten conditions which are designed to control odor and particulate emission from the dried poultry waste facility. Prior to the issuance of that emission permit by the State Health Department, there was considerable input from surrounding property owners concerning the odor issue related to this application. Motion seconded by Jerry Kiefer Vote : For Passage Chuck Carlson _ Against Passage Percy Hiatt Ben Nix Irma White Harry Ashley Frank SuckLa Jerry Kiefer The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings . r $ I Rolanda Feeds, Inc. SUP-335:77: 9 P. C. RECOMMENDATION January 17, 1978 It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that we have not received enough input concerning the effectiveness of the facilities in controlling odor emissions from the dehydrating process, since the installation of the venture scrubber and associated cyclonic mist eliminator by Rolanda Feeds, Inc. and the issuance of the emission permit by the State Health Department. The Planning Commission recommends the application be tabled until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 7, 1978, to permit the staff to fully evaluate the input received on the odor issue at the January 17, 1978, Planning Commission meeting. • CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , Shirley A. Phillips —, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on January 17, 1972 and re- corded in Book No . VI of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated the 18 day of January _ 19 78 Secretary BEFORE THE AIIICOUNTY , COLORADO PLANNIIOOMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No . SUP # 335: 77: 9 Date June 21, 1977 APPLICATION OF Rolanda Feeds, Inc. ADDRESS 6509 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Moved by Ben Nix that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission : Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for site approval of Dehydration Facility covering the following described property in Weld County , Colorado , to-wit : To be Tabled be recommended (Xf5CaNYMVXXXXX(K.IMONATKOdak to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons : 1. The Weld County Health Department has indicated the applicant has filed for an air pollution emission permit (No. C-11, 328) for the Economy single-pass drier. On June 14, 1977, the Weld County Health Department monitored the facility for particulate emissions and found the facility exceeded the 20% opacity level permitted under State Health Regulations. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this application for a Special Use Permit be tabled until the applicant has secured approval from the Weld County Health Department and the Air Quality Control Commission (State Health Department) has issued the air pollution emission permit for the Economy single-pass drier. The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant be permitted to operate either of the two driers while this Special Use Permit application Motion seconded by Percy Hiatt Vote : For Passage Trma White _ Against Passage Ben Nix Bette Koitntz Bill Elliott Marge Yost Percy Hiatt Harry Ashley Ron Heitman The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Conmissioners for further proceedings . Rolanda Feeds, Inc. SUP-335: 77: 9 P. C. Resolution June 21, 1977 is pending, but only under the condition that when the drier or driers are operating they must comply with Weld County and State Health Standards and Regulations. The Planning Commission further recommends that the Weld County Health Department continue their monitoring program for the facility to assure compliance with Weld County and State Health Standards and Regulations. 1110 411, CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , Shirley A. Phillips , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Plannirg Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on June 21, 1977 and re- corded in Book No . V _ of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated the 8 _ day of July _ 1977 Secretary The Weld County Planning Commission held a scheduled meeting on p February 7, 1978, at 1 : 30 p .m. in the Weld County Centennial Center County Commissioners Hearing Room, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado. Roll Call was as follows : Ben Nix Present Chuck Carlson Present Jerry Kiefer Present Percy Hiatt Present Marge Yost Present Bette Kountz Present Irma White Present Harry Ashley Absent Also present were: Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator Chuck Cunliffe, Assistant Zoning Administrator Ken McWilliams, Senior Planner Kay Norton, Assitant County Attorney As a nuorum was present , the meeting proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the January 17, 1978 , meeting were unanimously approved. APPLICANT: Rolanda Feeds, Inc. CASE NUMBER: SUP-335 : 77 : 9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . El NE-1, Section 31 , T2N, RG4W LOCATION: 3 miles east and 1 miles north of Hudson SUBJECT: Chicken manure dehydration facility DISCUSSION: There was no further discussion or input from the applicant or the audience regarding the application . Ken McWilliams then read the staff ' s recommendation for denial of the application. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to deny the application based on the staff 's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Irma White. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , and Irma White. A vote of "no" was cast by Frank Suckla and abstention votes cast by Marge Yost and Bette Kountz. Motion carried 5 to 1 . APPLICANT: Best-Way Paving Company etal CASE NUMBER: Z-294 : 77 : 12 and SUP-347:77: 21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NE , Section 2, T5N, RGGW LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street on northwest perimeter of Greeley SUBJECT: Change of Zone from "E" to "A" - Open Cut Mining-Gravel Pit APPEARANCE: Robert Mathias and Tom Connell DISCUSSION: Robert Mathias of R. V. Lord and Associates briefly reviewed the meeting of January 17, 1978, by use of a map presentation . At the last meeting, the Planning Commission was concerned about the details regarding the mining plan and reclamation plan. The map presentation briefly re-capped Best-Way ' s proposal . A supple- mental report was prepared by lord and Associates in answer to con- cerns or the Planning Commission . This report includes test results Planning Commissior inutes 'Page 2 February 7, 1978 on pit noise and ambient conditions and the scrapper operation. The pit noise and ambient conditions are within State limits and the scrapper operation will be controlled by Best-Way so that any noise will not be objectionable to surrounding neighbors. Mr. Mathias also indicated that there will be no more dust from the gravel pit operation than there is with the farming operation. Tom Connell , attorney for Best-Way, then reviewed the request for the change of zone and how the property in question was zoned several years ago. Chuck Cunliffe then read the motion by the Planning Commission made on January 17, 1978 , and then read the staff ' s recommendation for tabling the application. The floor was then opened for comments from the audience. At this time, Tom IIellerich, representing Ray Larson, surrounding property owner , again spokein opposition of the proposal primarily because of the need for the change of zone and was very critical of Lord' s supp- lemental report . He indicated the report was inconclusive and totally vacant to any of the questions asked by the Planning Commission at the last meeting regarding drainage between the berms and the street . Vicki Reed then presented two more petitions to the Planning Commission in opposition of the proposal and supported Mr. Hellerich ' s comments regarding the need for the change of zone. She also reviewed the mining plan in the 10th phase of operation and showed by use of a map that ' of the 45 acres will be a major dis- turbance. She also reviewed the noise study taken by Lord and Associates and felt it was not accurate. Tara Frank, Dr . Larry Wikholm, Robert Foose, Esther Rempel , Keith Tanner and Margaret Ruhl all expressed their opposition to the proposal . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the meeting to February 21, 1978 , for further testimony. Additional information also requested to be heard at this meeting include: More input from the City of Greeley as requested by Ben Nix, further information as to whether or not the rocks contain asbestos as requested by Mr. Carlson, and further drainage information as requested by Irma White. Motion by Frank Suckla, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White. A vote of "no" was cast by Jerry Kiefer and an abstention vote was cast by Marge Yost . Motion carried 6 to 1 . APPLICANT: Robert See CASE NUMBER: Z-296 : 77 : 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SE; SE*, Section 9, T5N, R65W LOCATION: East of Greeley on East 18th Street SUBJECT: Change of Zone from "E" to "C" APPEARANCE: Robert See DISCUSSION: Mr. See presented his request for a change of zone in that he is looking for a home for his business which is See Farm Buildings and feels this is a good location . The proposal involves 1 acres only on U. S. 34 . The function of the proposal would be to Planning Commissior inutes Page 3 February 7, 1978 have a storage shed for building materials and an office area for sales and administration. There being no further questions , Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for continuing the hearing to March 7. Discussion followed regarding the future plans for use of the remaining 2l acres owned by Mr. See. Mr . See indicated his plans could possibility be construction of duplexs and horse pasture. Mr. Carlson then asked for audience participation . Elinor Rogers spoke and said that she is opposed because the property in question goes 25 ' beyond the south boundary of Lot 4 . Ed Berliere , who did the engineering work on the plan indicated there was no reason for this other than the fact that it provided an easy survey. Bette McWilliams expressed her concern for the 22 acres involving egress and ingress , water , and septic system if it is developed into duplexs and horse pasture as indicated by Mr . See that he might possibly have in the future . Mr . Carlson indicated that the Planning Commission is not concerned with the 2- acres at this time , only the 1 acres being considered at this time . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the hearing to March 7, 1978 , based on the staff ' s recommendation . Motion by Percy Hiatt , seconded by Frank Suckla. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White . Motion carried. APPLICANT: Ronald Heitman CASE NUMBER : SUP-349 : 73 : 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SE- SE- , Section 9, T5N, R65W LOCATION: 3 miles south and 2 miles east of Ft . Lupton SUBJECT: Hog Farrowing and Finishing Operation APPEARANCE: Ronald Heitman DISCUSSION: Mr . Heitman stated that he and his brother jointly own the property and Ron wants to help his brother get the hog operation started so that eventually the operation will belong to him. Ron would like to stay in the operation on a management basis . His proposal is to finish 300 head and farrow 200 head for a total of a 500 head operation . Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for approval and the Development Standards for the operation . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval with the Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners based on the staff ' s recommendation with a change in the Development Standards to read 500 head instead of 300 head. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Percy Hiatt . A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix , Frank Suckla, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White . Motion carried . APPLICANT: George Downing CASE NUMBER : SUP-350 : 78 : 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3-7 , 20-24 , Block 8 , Town of Carr LOCATION: Town of Carr SUBJECT: Junk and Salvage Yard Operation APPEARANCE : George Downing Planning Commission inutes Page 4 February 7 , 1978 DISCUSSION: Mr . Downing only stated that he wishes to have a junk and salvage yard on the proposed location . Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for denying the application . Mr . Downing said he did not think it would hurt the Town of Carr as in the past six years only three families have moved into the town and it has not grown that much. He did not feel it would depreciate the value of anyone ' s property . Mrs . White said that she had talked with several persons in the area and questions a junk yard in the middle of town . Larry Batman , representing Hazel Slater , surrounding property owner, voiced his opposition for the proposal indicating Mrs . Slater did not want to look out her front window and see a junk yard. IIe also felt there would be a possibility of fire . Arnold Ivie also expressed his opposition because of depreciation of property values . Mr . -Nix asked if he could locate elsewhere , but Mr . Downing responded by saying there was no where else to go . Also felt there would be no more noise there than the train that goes through and also does not feel there would be a fire danger . He said he also proposed to fence the area. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to deny the application based on the staff ' s recommendation . Motion by Irma White , seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Lyle Picraux CASE NUMBER: Z-295 : 77 : 13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SW* , Section 32 , T1N, R68W LOCATION: 3 miles west of the intersection of State Highway 7 and I-25 SUBJECT: Change of Zone from "A" to "C-UD" APPEARANCE : Lyle Picraux DISCUSSION: Mr . Picraux said he purchased 30 acres of land several years ago with the intention in mind of developing the land into a construction business yard selling building materials to general contractors and a contract company that constructs concrete base- ments for new homes . The building on the property was built for a show home only . Now he wishes to have it as a construction yard, office , shop and place to store materials for construction sites . He plans to fence the yard in from the traffic and build many storage type units on the north property to buffer it from the residential area. There being no questions from the Planning Commission , Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for denying the application . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to deny the application based on the staff ' s recommendation and primarily based on the information sub- mitted by the Erie Planning Commission ' s recommendation for denial . Motion by Percy Hiatt , seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, and Irma White. Motion carried. There being no further business , the meeting adjourned . Respectfully submitted , Shirley A. Phillips The Weld County „arming Commission held a s_�,eduled meeting on „ 1977, at 1 : 30 p .m. in the Weld County Centennial Center June �1, Room, first floor , 915 10th Street, County Commissioners' Hearing Greeley, Colorado illiod Roll Call was as follows: Present Ben Nix Present Harry Ashley resent Bill Elliott Present Bette Kountz Present Marge Yost Present Percy Hiatt Present Ron Heitman Present Irma White Absent Chuck Carlson As a quorum was present , the meeting proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the June 7 meeting were approved unanimously. c. APPLICANT: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association CASE NUMBER: SUP-332 : 77 : 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 6 and 7, T4N, R68W LOCATION: 11 mile northeast of Berthoud SUBJECT: Route Selection for Lone Tree 115 KV Project-Study Corridor APPEARANCE: Wayne Waterman _ tff DISCUSSION: Bill Elliott aek� annng Commission members made di the ndation b the asfield be reviewed briefly. Th trip to the subject location earlier that day to look at the proposed location. Some discussion followed royal to the Board MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend pp of County Commissioners with the development standards. Motion by Bill Elliott, seconded by Percy Hiatt . A vote of "aye" by ma White, Marge Yost, Ron Heitman, Bill Elliott , and Percy Ni Hiatt . A vote of "no" by Bette Kountz, Harry Ashley, and e n carried. APPLICANT: Town of Mead �O `�� - " CASE NUMBER: SUP-334:77: 8 T3N, R68W LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. Szf Section 8, LOCATION: 1L miles.west of Mead SUBJECT: Upgrading of Water Treatment Facilities and Water Storage Tank APPEARANCE: Dennis Messner of Hogan and Olhausen, Inc. DISCUSSION: Mr. Messner explained the request for the water storage facility for raw water in that it will be used only from the end of the irrigation season until the following irrigation season begins. They are presently taking water from the Supply Ditch, treating it and transfering it into the town system. The purpose for the new facility is to provide storage for the winter months. Ken McWilliams read the staff comments and development standards. Mr . 'Heitman asked if these were understood. The applicant pp tc ated they were and had no objections . I Aim \ \�.`1 .) ).S1 / The Weld County Planning Commission held a scheduled meeting on January 17, 1978, at 1 : 30 p .m. in the Weld County Centennial Center County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado. Roll Call was as follows: Ben Nix Present Harry Ashley Present Chuck Carlson Present Frank Suckla Present Irma White Present Jerry Kiefer Present Percy Hiatt Present Bette Kountz Absent Marge Yost Absent Also present : Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Chuck Cunliffe, Assistant Zoning Administrator Ken McWilliams, Senior Planner Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney As a quorum was present, the meeting proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the January 3 , 1978, meeting were unanimously approved. APPLICANT: Stan Rech CASE NUMBER: SUP-348:77 : 22 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . W,, SWI, Section 22, T2N, R66W LOCATION: 1z miles north and 2 miles east of Ft. Lupton immediately north of Aristocrat Ranchettes SUBJECT: Oil Recycling and Disposal Site APPEARANCE: Stan Rech DISCUSSION: Mr . Rech presented his request for an oil recycling and disposal site, that being having a water truck go to a lease to suck water out of a pit or tank and disposing of the fluid into a pit . The fluid is then pumped into tanks where any oil which may be in the water will be separated. The water then goes into a leach field. According to referrals received back in the office, this could not be allowed because the water exceeds state limits regarding water being placed back into the sursurface. There being no questions at this time, Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for tabling the application. John Hall of the Weld County Health Department was then asked to explain the analysis of the sample taken from Mr. Rech' s site, this being 12, 000 PPM. Mr. Hall stated that the test run indicated there was 12, 390 PPM total dissolved solids which is approximately 1/3 saline solution. Discussion followed regarding how this would compare to ordinary surface water. Mr. Suckla said he felt Mr. Rech ' s request would be an asset for those concerned. Mr. Kiefer asked what the procedure would be to assure the City of Ft . Lupton that the ground water would not be contaminated and was told that documentation is all that is needed. Jim I3rannen of Jim' s Water Service indicated he feels there is very much a need for this type of proposal . Planning Commission mutes Page 2 January 17, 1978 MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to table the application pending concerns posed by different referral agencies and the staff and to provide time for the State Engineer and Weld County Health Department to adequately evaluate and comment on the application. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Jerry Kiefer. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix , Harry Ashley, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , and Irma White. A vote of "no" was cast by Frank Suckla. Motion carried 6 to 1 . APPLICANT: Best-Way Paving Company etal CASE NUMBER: Z-294 : 77: 12 and SUP-347 : 77 : 21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NE , Section 2, T5N, R66W LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street on northwest perimeter of Greeley SUBJECT: Change of Zone from "E" to "A" - Open Cut Mining Permit for Gravel Pit APPEARANCE: Bob Mathias, geologist of R. V. ' Lord and Associates DISCUSSION: Mr. Mathias first presented his program to the Planning Commission by use of a map presentation illustrating exactly where the site is located, which involves 45 acres proposed to be rezoned, in regard to 35th Avenue and 4th Street . Best-Way has been in operation intermittently since 1965 . He then showed a slide present- ation which showed the entrance to the pit looking north across the agricultural land, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park, a church site, Johnson Subdivision and the City subdivisions on the south side of the street . He then explained in great detail the mining plan and different phases of the operation and the reclamation plan for the area. Two public meetings were held by Best-Way for surrounding property owners to explain to them their proposal and allow them to express their opinions in regard to the operation . Items of concern brought out at the meetings were that landowners want the berm removed from the southwest side of the site, they would like to have a privacy fence around the area so that the pit is not in view, they were concerned about their health regarding dust and noise pollution, devaluation of their property, and a secondary access onto 4th Street . Best-Way has agreed to build a 4 ' mound with a 6 ' fence around the area and they have no desire for a secondary access onto 4th Street. Mr. Kiefer asked if Best-Way has had a deed to the property only since March of 1977. Mr. Mathias indicated that this was correct , but that Best-Way had an unrecorded contract with Norman Ruyle since 1971 to sell the property to Best-Way. There being no further questions from the Planning Commission, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for tabling the application . Discussion followed regarding the need to use the mineral deposits prior to development . The planning process was explained by Gary Fortner and legally by Kay Norton . Mr. Carlson then called for comments from the audience. At this time Vicki Reed presented to the Planning Commission the original petitions with 167 signatures of landowners opposed to the request which she indicated represents SM or the landowners . She also presented the Planning Commission with a copy or C. R.S . 1 !)7 law Section : d-1-:3051 which covers preservation 4 f Planning Commissioi inutes Page 3 January 17 , 1978 of commercial mineral deposits for extraction. She also sited several items in the Lord plan that were very vague and unclear in her opinion. Linda Vasenius also presented the Planning Commission with petitions of 54 signatures representing landowners opposed to Best-Way ' s proposal . She also pointed out the numerous health hazards that can be associated with gravel pit operations. Tom IIellerich, attorney for Ray Larson, landowner, said that in reviewing the application he feels there is no need for the rezoning and that the existing plant on 35th Avenue is a non-conforming use in the Agricultural zone. He also feels that a 100' wide strips on the west edge of the property carries a covenant which forbids its use for anything but residential development . Other comments by Mr. Hellerich were that he feels the plans by Lord and Associates is very vague and inadequate regarding the control of dust , where the water will come from for the operation, and drainage. Norman Ruyle, however, had no objections to the proposal and feels there would be no dust or noise problem. Several other persons, including Ray Larson, Keith Tanner, Mariana Reed, and Robert Foose also indicated their strong opposition to the proposal . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to table the recommendation pending a detailed plan for adequately buffering the two land uses, develop- ment of a safety improvements plan, submission of evidence that liability coverage has been obtained of not less than $100, 000, clarification of the proposed use of the access onth 4th Street, method of controlling the drainage between the proposed 4 ' berm and 35th Avenue and between the 4 ' berm and 4th Street . Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Ben Nix. A unanimous vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Harry Ashley, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer , Percy Hiatt, and Irma White. Motion carried. ---\ ‘ - � APPLICANT: Rolanda Feeds, Inc. \ , \ � •3� ��% 5 „ � CASE NUMBER: SUP-335: 77: 9 ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. E NE , Section 31, T2N, R64W LOCATION: 3 miles east and 1 miles north of Hudson SUBJECT: Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility APPEARANCE: Stanley Stolte, Anthony Zarlengo DISCUSSION: This application was tabled at the June 21 , 1977, Planning Commission meeting pending the receipt of an air pollution permit from State authorities . The permit was granted in November after Rolanda installed a $100, 000 anti-pollution scrubber. Anthony Zarlengo, representing Rolanda Feeds, briefly reviewed the application and indicated the scrubber that was installed has now eliminated odor according to State standards . The final permit was issued by the State Health Department on November 30, 1977, which states that -- Rolanda has passed the visual opacity test and the emissions test. Copper emissions were also of concern and cannot now be detected according to State officials. Stanley Stolte of Rolanda Feeds , Inc . Stated that work was begun to install the scrubber on June 22 and the operation bel;an in mid August . An odor test was Laken by the State IIn' day ol the final permit. . Ron Stow or the Weld County Health Department explained Lu the P1 a n'n i ng Commission the standards set by Planning Commissio inutes Page 4 January 17, 1978 the State regarding the emissions permit in regard to the operation and the opacity test . Discussion followed regarding the frequency of the tests and complaints received. Mr. Stow was asked by Gary Fortner to read the ten conditions required by the State to operate and control the operation. There being no further discussion, Ken McWilliams then read the staff ' s recommendation for tabling. Chairman Carlson then called for audience participation. A great deal of opposition was expressed by George Shaklee, Allen Alter, Bob Fritzler, James Bell , Dorothy Gertner, Mrs. Jim Bridgewater, Bob Denning and Russell Hays. These people all represented many people also in the audience who are opposed to Rolanda' s operation. All indicated the odor was just as bad as before the scrubber was installed to eliminate odor. The odor is still just as offensive and unbearable as it was before the scrubber was installed. Those in the audience opposed to the operation asked the Planning Commission to make a decision soon so they would know what they would have to live with in the future. Chairman Carlson asked if there were any chemicals that could be used to eliminate the odor. Ron Stow indicated that there were other ways, but Rolanda chose the scrubber. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to table the application with a decision to be made on February 7, 1978. Motion by Harry Ashley, seconded by Jerry Kiefer. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Harry Ashley, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , and Irma White. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Shirley A. Phillips /sap DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF ::;?MBERS Gary Fortner Kathy ITrouda Tom Honn Sheri Wilson Chuck Cunliffe Betty Firing Bob Adams Ellen Mills Ken McWilliams Rebecca Gutierrez Thomas Rounds Joe Jarvis Roy Jost Roger Vigil Bill Rodriguez Bill Stewart Bill Hughes Virgil McKee Edward Caller Julian Dupey Paulette Weaver Bob Huffman Shirley Phillips Jim Smith PLANNING COMMISSION M1TBERS Chuck Carlson J. Ben Nix Marge Yost Harry Ashley Jerry Kiefer Bette Kountz Percy Hiatt Irma White Frank Suckla Addresses : c/o Department of Planning Services Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 /sap 2/9/78 ,,�'a�3.�`� .: •r�.7-`. \'vo w Datc : Fe' "nary 7.1978 _ : SUP-335: 77: 9 Rolanda Feeds, Inc. Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility 1 FGAI, I)ESCI',TPTIO::T: _ Pt. E2 i NE*, Section 31 , T2N, RF4W _OCAT1O1,:: 3 miles east and 1- miles north of Hudson THIS, ; _ f AII"::. :CT OF PLANNIIIG SI;PVICFS STAFF RECO'UIT:;I)S THAT THIS denied FOR THE FOLLOWING E ASONS : 1 . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that this Special Use Permit request for a dehydration facility_ at the proposed location is not in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons : A. One of the policies in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan states : "The expansion and development of agri-business and agriculturally oriented industry will be encouraged provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or environment . " It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff, based on evidence submitted by surrounding property•'owners and residents of the area, that the applicant has not demonstrated that this enterprise will not adversely affect the surrounding environment . Further, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the operation of the dehydration facility as requested will adversely affect the surrounding environment due to the odor emanating from the facility. B. Another policy of the Plan states : "Because water, air and surface pollution are of vital concern to all residents of the county, the state and the nation, it will be the policy to encourage only those development that can show that they will not con- tribute to the pollution problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appropriate control devices at their own expense or will pay sufficient revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system. " Rolanda Feeds, Inc. SUP-335 : 77: 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION February 7, 1978 It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has not demonstrated that the dehydration facility will not contribute to odor pollution. Though the applicant has installed control devices, it is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff, based on evidence submitted by surrounding property owners and residents of the area, that the applicant has not demonstrated that the pollution control devices have eliminated the negative impacts of odors on surrounding properties. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the applicant has not demonstrated that this Special Use Permit for the dehydrating facility: A. Is compatible with the surrounding area, B. Is in harmony with the character of the neighborhood, C. Will not have an adverse effect upon the immediate area, D. Will not adversely affect the future development of the area, E. Is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the County. This determination is based upon the volume of the public input received at the public meetings and submitted in writing indicating that the venturi scrubber installed as a part of the dehydration facility has not been effective in eliminating the odor which emanates from the facility. Testimony has been submitted by surrounding property owners that the odor has and will continue to have an adverse effect on surrounding property values and is creating a nuisance for surrounding property owners. 3. The Town of Keenesburg has indicated they recommend the Special Use Permit be denied for the following reasons which were enumerated in a letter dated January 11, 1978 : "There have been numerous complaints from concerned citizens regarding the obnoxious odor produced from this operation, also what effect the raw material will have on fly infestation in the summer months. We have been advised that scrubber have been installed to eliminate the odor, but thus far there has not been any noticible improvement. The Town of Keenesburg is already bordered by a chicken farm, dairy farm, and a hog operation, and we feel one more operation of this nature will certainly not enhance our chances for future growth. Rolanda Feeds, Inc. SUP-335: 77: 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION February 7, 1978 Air pollution being a major issue everywhere, should be given top priority in making your decision. We are not anti-free enterprise, but feel the health and welfare of the people should be our major concern. Therefore we implore your careful consideration in approving this Special Use Permit. " Date : Jan'-ary 17, 1978 r 1 CASE NUMBER: SUP-335: 77: 9 NAME: Rolanda Feeds, Inc. REQUEST: Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . E3--. NE , Section 1, T2N, R64W LOCATION: 3 miles east and l miles north of Hudson THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE tabled FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff at this time (prior to the schuled Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 1978) , that there is inadequate evidence available to fully evalute the possible adverse impacts to surrounding properties from any odor emission from the dehydrating facility. On November 30, 1977, the Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, issued Rolanda Feeds , Inc. an emissions permit with ten conditions which are designed to control odor and particulate emission from the dried poultry waste facility. Prior to the issuance of that emission permit by the State Health Department , there was considerable input from surrounding property owners concerning the odor issue related to this application. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that we have not received enough input concerning the effectiveness of the facilities in controlling odor emissions from the dehydrating process, since the installation of the venture scrubber and associated cyclonic mist eliminator by Rolanda Feeds, Inc. and the issuance of the emission permit by the State Health Department . The Department of Planning Services staff recommends the application be tabled until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 7, 1978, to permit the staff to fully evaluate the input received on the odor issue at the January 17, 1978, Planning Commission meeting. - ' 1 OIL , June 21, 1977 CASE NUMBER: SUP-335:77: 9 LOCATION: 3 miles east and 11 mile north of Hudson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. NE4 , Sec. 31 , T2N, R64W REQUEST: Dehydration Facility NAME: Roland Feeds, Inc. THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE tabled FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The Weld County Health Department has indicated the applicant has filed for an air pollution emissinn permit (No. C-11 , 328) for the Economy single-pass drier. On June 14, 1977, the Weld County Health Department monitored the facility for particulate emissions and found the facility exceeded the 20% opacity level permitted under State Health Regulations. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission staff that this application for a Special Use Permit be tabled until the applicant has secured approval from the Weld County Health Department and the Air Quality Control Commission (State Health Department) has issued the air pollution emission permit for Economy single-pass drier. The Planning Commission staff recommends that the applicant be permitted to operate either of the two driers while this Special Use Perm ' application is pending, but only under the condition that when the drier or driers are operating they must comply with Weld County and State Health Standards and Regulations. The Planning Commission staff further recommends that the Weld County Health Department continue their monitoring program for the facility to assure compliance with Weld County and State Health Standards and Regulations. I . e J ROBERT COLLIER, M.D. Professional Corporation Wadsworth Medical Arts Building 4045 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge,Colorado 80033 —0-- Telephone 424-5515 April 25, 1978 Weld County Board of Commissioners Gentlemen: Unfortunately, numerous committments prevent my attendance at the hearing this evening. I would like to submit the following information for your consideration. Mrs. Linda Rossi has been my patient since April, 1976, for multiple allergic problems. I have treated her mother, Mrs. Norma Cooper since May, 1975, for similar problems. Mrs. Rossi is severely hypersensitive to a number of factors, including air-borne pollutants. She had to discontinue a very productive Beauty-Shop business because of intolerance to various fumes which result from beautician operations. When she moved out of the major metropolitan pollution area in May, 1977, her symptoms were markedly improved. However, when the Rolanda Feed Farm began production she noticed the aggravation of her symptoms of tightness in chest, cough, nausea and breathlessness whenever the prevailing winds brought the pollution from the plant over her home. These symptoms would persist until the plant shut down or the wind shifted. . Finally, in an attempt to provide a method to relieve her symptoms, in February, 1978, I supplied the Rossi family with an airpump extracting device and asked them to use it for a total of 24 hours during which the pollution from the plant was evident at her home. The device is an air pump which sucks air through a series of three flasks containing 50% glycerine, 0.4% phenol and 0.4% sodium bicarbonate, in water. The device was placed out-doors in the yard on several days in order to achieve a total of 24 hours of operation. When returned to me, the solution which was previously clear was now a strong amber color. The material has been given to the Colorado Department of Health, but I am not aware of the results of analysis. This solution was then filtered for purification, made into several dilutions and used as a test material. Mrs. Rossi demonstrated a strong reaction in a testing technique whereby she was unaware of the strength of the dilution used nor whether it contained any of the extracted material. Mrs. Cooper, who lives in Hudson, and farther from the plant, also has similar symptoms when exposed to the odors. Testing with the same material also caused aggravation of symptoms. Others not normally exposed to the fumes show no effect from the extract. Weld County Board of Commissioners Page 2 In my professional opinion, the effluent pollution of this plant is definitely determental to the health of these two individuals, and represents a potential hazard to anyone who might be repeatedly exposed to it. Sincey, ',.71/ (4/6:-/-te;Zi\ 't / Robert Collier, M.D. RC/cr April 25 , 1978 Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado RE : Planning Commission on the Rolanda Feeds Special Use Permit Application Dear Commissioners : I would like to take this opportunity as Chairman of the Weld County Planning Commission to respond to the objections raised by the at- torney for the applicant, Rolanda Feeds , to the Planning Commission recommendations in this case . The applicant has stated that the Planning Commission received and considered evidence after it had officially closed its hearing on Rolanda Feeds . Specifically , the applicant states that the Planning Commission considered a Weld County Health Department report of an alleged air pollution violation by the applicant and an action by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health revoking the applicant ' s omission permit and relied on these factors in making its decision on February 7 , 1978 . In addition , the applicant states that the Planning Commission improperly relied on a letter submitted from the town of Keenesburg , which the applicant states was not an official action of the town of Keenesburg . I now state without reservation that the Planning Commission did not at any time after the close of evidence in this special use permit application consider any evidence which may have arisen after our hearings on the matter and prior to our decision . We were advised by our counsel as to what evidence was properly before us and at no time did the Commission go outside of the record for any basis for its decision . Thank you . /) '62, ck Carlson Chairman , Weld County Planning Commission i 0 1h DFPAR I MLNT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303)356-4000 EXT.404 915 10TH STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 V 11 � • COLORADO August 23, 1978 Rolanda Feeds, Inc. 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find Check #1178 for $10.00 for recordation of the Special Use Permit plat for the dehydration facility. Due to denial of your application, the recording fee is no longer required by this office . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully, Shirley A. Phillips Planning Commission Secretary /sap Enclosure r Nos 848290 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVtRAGE PROVIGE I— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Revere) SE NT I O PO "a'_AN Z,Pcol` ,.a I4' J�iMPLr.�,ir Z _AOJJTOWw",, "A`EASO 0 - ADDRESS 0,-f)E' ,`9Y VaTH e 6 RESTRICTEu DI.JFRY TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES S r ti POSTMARK OR DATE r.: d sJ w • • Page 1 of Date: April 29, 1977 TO: Weld County Planning Commission County Services Building Greeley, Colorado 80631 FRONT: Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated 6509 Weld County Road 51 ICeenesburg, Colorado 80643 RE: Description of proposed and existing operation for Special Use Permit The legal description of the property and area upon which the Special Use Permit is proposed is as follows: A tract of land located in the East - of the Northeast 1,1 of Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P. I•I., said property not to exceed Eighty (80) acres, County of Weld, State of Colorado. Also known as 6509 Weld County Road 51 . Said property shall include one (1) small farm house, fence and corrals, and shall include 100' X 100' lot upon which Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated built the new office building, laying South of the driveway which is South of the small farm house. In addition to the 100' X 100' tract, the survey shall include all lands North of the South border of the existing North driveway, and lands East of the West border of that part of the landing strip that is North of the South line of the existing driveway or road described above. Said Westerly line of the premises shall be located on the West border of the landing strip and shall extend North all the way to Road 16, per agreement entered into on the 18th day of April, 1977, between Medsker and Overton Farm Venture, as Seller, and Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated and/or Lloyd L. Land, Stanley L. Stole, and Roland L. Nuss, as Purchaser. Note Survey by Jerry NcRae and Robert Short Engineering. I Page 2 of 5 The existing structures and facilities are as mentioned, cne (1) small farm house, fence and corrals included, the new office building 25' X 30', one (1) storage building 40' X 80' used to store the wet manure inside, one (1) airplane hangar 28' X 38' which is retained by agreement with Lloyd Land and ?Iedsker and Overton Farm Venture, one (1) Beard Direct— Fired Rotary Dryer with attached Cyclone Dust Collector Control, which at the present is partially covered by said storage building, later to be eliminated upon completion of the new Dryer, one (1) Economy Single— Pass Dryer with attached Cyclone Dust Collector Control in the process of being assembled for future use, one (1) fuel tank 16' X 8' 6,000 gallon capacity, one (1) fuel tank 15' X 7' 5,500 gallon capacity, and one (1) 12' bulk feed tank 2,190 bushel, steel sub structure farbricated on site for storage. The proposed structures and facilities are a storage building 40' X 60' to be erected over the Economy Single—Pass Dryer and used for storage of the wet manure to prevent any stockpiles and store all manure for company use inside the building. Four (4) more storage tanks, bushel, capacity unknown at the present time. Also, asphalting an 18' width driveway and parking area to the east of the office building and south of the storage building. The remaining area and property which will be all open space will be used for farming, pasture, and dryland. The operation was designated for the purpose of recycling dried poultry waste by the process of dehydration, and dehydrating sugar beet tops for livestock feed. The poultry waste is being obtained from the Hudson Gates Cyclo and Brighton Gates Cyclo. From Hudson Gates Cyclo approximately 2,500 Ton of manure per year is spread as fertilizer on the Lloyd Jana Farm located an Highway 52 at Road 49 then South on 49 to the farm and approximately 5,800 Ton of manure per year is spread as fertilizer on Lloyd Jands 320 acre farm located one mile East of Hudson on Highway 52. From Brighton Gates Cyclo approximately 6,000 Ton of manure per year is being spread as fertilizer on the Nedsker and Overton Farm Venture's 700 acre farm being farmed by Lloyd Land and located, on Road 51 adjoining the described property belonging to Rolanda Feeds Incorporated. The poultry waste is being stockpiled on the individual farm locations for fertilizer use. The remaining tonnage of approximately 3,580 Ton is being dried and dehydrated by Rolanda Feeds Incorporated at the described property. The tonnage will fluctuate depending on the supply of manure on hand. All manure picked up at Boulder Valley is Page 3 of 5 used at Roland Nuss's farm as fertilizer. The proposed Sugar Beet Tops for future dehydrating are grown on the farms mentioned, farmed and owned, by Lloyd Land. The Sugar Beet Tops will be used for livestock feed as well. The existing operation will be maintained on a two (2) shift a day, five (5) day work week with the first shift beginning at 8:00 A.N. and ending at 4:00 P.N. and the second shift beginning at 4:oo P.M. and ending at 12:00 midnight. The dehydrator requires two (2) men on each shift for operation. In addition, Rolanda Feeds Incorporated employs a maintenance man for minor repairs, painting and cleaning, a parttime man for extra help and two drivers for hauling the manure to the dehydrator and to Lloyd Land's farm. The transaction from the raw product to the finished product is obtained by the following process: (1) transportation—a 1976 Ford truck F700, 361 V8 5 spd, GVU 24,0001bs. travels from Rolanda Feeds at 6509 Weld County Road 51 , one and a half miles South to Highway 52 :.hen West to Hudson, West of Hudson one and a half miles North to Hudson Gates Cyclo. At this point the truck is loaded with a 7sTon load of poultry waste and the return route from Hudson Gates Cyclo would be South one and a half miles to Hudson on Highway 52, then two miles East of Hudson on Highway 52 to Road 51 , North one and a half miles to the office or South of Hudson Gates Cyclo one and a half mile to Hudson East on Highway 52 one mile to the 320 acre farm belonging to Lloyd Land or South of Hudson Gates Cyclo on Highway 52 two miles to Hudson East on Highway 52 to Road 49, South on Road 49 to the 'rand Farm, where the raw material will be used on the farms for fertilizer. (2) Transportation— a 1977 Ford truck LT8000 Cab Chassis GVU 50,0001bs. traveling from Rolanda Feeds at 6509 Weld County Road 51 , one and a half miles South to Highway 52, West to 1-76 to Highway 7, then one mile West of Brighton turn South four miles to Brighton Gates Cyclo. There the truck is loaded with a 12 Ton load and the return route is North four miles to Page 4 of 5 Brighton on Highway 7 to I-76 then North on 1-76 to Highway 52, then East on Highway 52 two miles to Road 51 then one and a half miles North to Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated and/or to the Medsker and Overton Farm Venture 700 acre farm, farmed by Lloyd Land and adjoining the described property owned by Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated, where the manure will be spread for fertilizer. The two trucks haul approximately two (2) loads daily five days a week to Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated. (3) The poultry waste is unloaded by said vehicles and the wet manure is stored in the existing storage building and will be stored in the proposed storage building. The manure is then loaded into the existing Beard Direct-Fired Rotary drier with attached Cyclone Dust Collector Control for dehydration at o.75 Ton per hour. The wet manure before dehydration will weigh an estimate of 52.08 lbs. per cubic foot and after dehydration the manure will weigh an estimate of 26.04 lbs. per cubic foot. Following the dehydration process the finished product is either stored in the bulk feed tank or trucked to the Ralston Purina Company in Irondale, traveling from Rolanda Feeds, incorporated, 6509 1Jeld County Road. 51 one and a half miles South to Highway 52 then two miles West to Interstate 76 South to 9200 East 90th Avenue, or to the farms owned by Roland L. Nuns, North z mile and East z mile from the office building at f•3landa Feeds, Incorporated, the farm owned by Lloyd L. Land, one and a half miles South of Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated on Road 51 then one mile [Jest on Highway 52, or to Stanley L. Stolte, one and a half miles South of Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated on Road 51 to Highway 52 West to Interstate 76 South to County Line Road, for the purpose of livestock feed. The existing Beard Direct—Fired Rotary drier with attached Cyclone Dust Collector Control is presently being operated under Air Pollution Control Division, Permit No. C11 ,169, 1.97 Tpy Av Ens, emission rate of particulate matter not more than 3.0 lbs per hour nor greater than 20% equivalent opacity. The above mentioned drier will be eliminated upon assembly completion of the modern 10' X 42' Economy Single—Pass drier with attached Cyclone Dust Collector Control, which will be operated under Air Pollution Control Division • Page 5 of 5 Permit No. C11,328, 1.19 Tpy Av Ems, emission rate of particulate matter not more than. 8.5 lbs per hour nor greater than 20;5 equivalent opacity and dehydration at approximately 2.25 Ton per hour. Upon complete installation of the Economy drier the work week should be reduced to a two (2) shift per day three (3) day a week work ?period. The only supply of water is for the office use only as the dehydration process requires no water supply. Please note attached copy of the well permit, and attached survey indicates method for disposal of sewage. r- 'U PS i 331978 April 21 , 1978 °z — Board of County Commissioners Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Application for a Special Use Permit for Rolanda Feeds Incorporated Gentlemen: As a Representative of the Town of Keenesburg, a letter dated January 11 , 1978 was issued by myself indicating a recommendation of denial of an application for a Special Use Permit by Rolanda Feeds Incorporated, for the following reasons: "There were numerous complaints from concerned citizens regarding odor produced from this operation, also what effect the raw material will have on fly infestation in the summer months." As of this date, I have made a personal inspection of the processing plant and as a result of this inspection I would like to make a second recommendation and inform the County Commissioners of my findings, which are as follows: "A Secondary Scrubber has been installed and at the time I visited the plant the scrubber was in the final stages of completion. The odor I found was a trace in comparison to prior odors and remained on the premises. The Secondary Scrubber appears to be eliminating the odor to a minimum, but I would recommend a satisfactory time limit be set upon completion of the scrubber system to determine rather or not the odor has been eliminated. The owners assured there would be no stockpiles of manure on the premises, other than the manure to be processed within a forty—eight (48) hour period. Also, the operation has been spraying for flies for the past two weeks and will continue to spray on a daily basis." I would like to recommend to the County Commissioners a thirty day trial period to evaluate the new system and continued odor control. Sincerely, 1-27:/- , Hugh Denton ) ' ' HD/dls O C0f MCielissigias _A-75Z _ ANTHONY V. ZARLENGO, P. C. ATTORNEY AT LAW APRi 2 1978 220 MANPOWER BUILDING 1554 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 629-0574o C O April 10, 1978 Board of County Commissioners Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley , Colorado 80631 Re: Objection to Recommendation of Planning Commission Rolanda Feeds, Inc. Gentlemen: Enclosed is Amended Objection to Recommendation of Planning Commission. In my letter of March 16 , 1978 , I requested that the Objection be scheduled for hearing prior to the hearing for Special Use Permit. The only notice which was forwarded to me states that April 25 , has been scheduled for the hearing on Special Use Permit. It is our position that the Objection to the Recommendation of the Planning Commission should be resolved before a hearing on the Special Use Permit can be held. And it should be noted that the Planning Commission' s decision was served upon the Applicant after the scheduling of the April 25 hearing date on Special Use Permit. After receiving the Planning Commis - sion 's decision and the additional information which was subsequently forwarded to me by the Planning Commission, it was necessary to amend the Objection as indicated in the enclosed Amended Objection . This office hereby requests that a prior hearing be scheduled on Rolanda' s Amended Objection, and that the Commission take whatever steps are necessary to effect this request . Thanking you for your consideration, L am Vfery tru yours , TIIONY R(E;;7C P. C AVZ: jp: j p ,/ cc: Rolanda Feeds , Inc . f `1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES '2' PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT 400 915 10TH STREET �K 4Y GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 rtr_ r �'Meti'" COLORADO April 6 , 1978 Anthony V. Zarlengo , P .C. Attorney at Law 220 Manpower Building 1554 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202 RE : Your request of April 3 , 1978 Dear Mr. Zarlengo : As per your letter and request of April 3, 1978, please find enclosed a copy of the letter you requested from the Town of Keenesburg in regard to the application by Rolanda Feeds , Inc. for a Special Use Permit . If you have any questions or need any further information , please do not hesitate to contact our office . Respectfully submitted, O. Q� Shirley A. Phillips /sap Enclosure ANTHONY V. ZARLENGO, P. C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 220 MANPOWER BUILDING 1554 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 629-0574 April 3, 1978 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Application for Special Use Permit Rolanda Feeds, Inc. Gentlemen: This is to acknowledge receipt of your Resolution of Recommendation pursuant to my request. Paragraph No. 3 of this Resolution refers to a January 11, 1978 , letter from the Town of Keenesburg. I do not have a copy of that letter. Would you please send me a copy of the January 11th letter at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Lam. ANTHONY V.r/ZARL GO, P.g. AVZ: jp 12 4S ff ��C R l�j� I i '' ' 1 ' { f COLORADO EDUCATION ASS.'. `CIAT1®R 5E--;„ SJ. SYRACUSE ST ENGLE:,'OOD, COLORADO 80113 PHf\E (303) 771-4240 DENNIS VALENTINE General Counsel %`zA' March 16, 1978 �, c -, Anthony V. Zarlengo, Esq. \\, \+�t 1 220 Manpower Building o`' ,cf.. 1554 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Victoria A. Gnojek Dear Mr. Zarlengo: Ms. Gnojek has contacted me and asked that I respond on her behalf to your 1, March 13, 1978 letter to the Colorado Commission of Education. She emphatically denies your accusations that she has instructed her students to write a theme on how bad the Rolanda Feeds plant smells. She teaches music, not English. She has never given a writing assignment concerning your client and has never advised any of her students that any themes would be published. As with any other citizen, she has the right to communicate her own personal views to the general public. She was exercising that right when she wrote her letter to the Keenesburg Valley Sun. Obviously, your client is greatly concerned by the residents' outrage at the foul odors emitting from the plant. However, your heavy handed attempt to intimidate Ms. Gnojek is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. She demands a retraction of your false accusations. Very truly yours, • Dennis E. Valentine DEV/jk k cc: Victoria Gnojek Calvin M. Frazier, Commissioner of Education Principal, Keenesburg Elementary School Board of Education, Keenesburg School District RE-3 Board of Commissioners of Weld County '✓ ,;:,7 ED TE:• 'JG PROFESSION ,750a it) j))7 �� • ANTHONY V. ZARLENGO, P. C. e� _ ATTORNEY AT LAW .rJA 220 MANPOWER BUILDING 77 '�' 1554 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 i il s.;.l.-, ,� '� 629-0574 1 i e i. 1.,i �1 ie. 3 f` March 16 , 1978 . ,t ;i 1_,'r',,C1 t,. Board of County Commissioners Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Application for Special Use Permit Rolanda Feeds , Inc. Gentlemen : Enclosed herewith for your consideration find the Objection to Recommendation of Planning Commission which we have pre- pared on behalf of our client, Rolanda Feeds , Inc . A copy of the enclosed has been mailed to the Planning Com- mision of Weld County. We would appreciate of you would schedule a healing on the enclosed Objection sometime in April, in advance of the hear- ing on our application for special use permit . Vey ,truly yours ,,6'- -4NY P,I, LVGO, P.C._ f j r� AVZ: jp cc: Rolanda Feeds , Inc . ANTHONY V. ZARLENGO, P. C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 220 MANPOWER BUILDING 1554 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO B0202 629-0574 March 13, 1978 Weld County Planning Department Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Application for Special Use Permit Rolanda, Feeds, Inc. Gentlemen: You were previously advised that the undersigned is the attorney for Rolanda Feeds, Inc. Neither my client nor this office ever received a copy of your formal decision recommending against the above application. Please send this office a formal copy of your decision, together with the findings which formed the basis thereof. Very truly yours , ANTHONY V. ARLF{N O, P.C. AVZ: jp Copies of Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation for SUP-335: 77: 9, Rolanda Feed, Inc . , sent certified mail on 3--14-78 to : Rolanda Feeds, Inc. 6509 l'reld County Road 51 Keenesburg, CO 80643 Anthony V. Zarlengo , P.C . Attorney at Law 220 Manpower Building 1554 California Street �,�,�g131415r►�� Denver, Colorado 80202 ® R1 4'i OC MAR 1978 RECEIVE® 1.0 WV etunq t, Sri g ' i q2e /_ • ANTHONY V. /AP[ F NGO, P. C. ATTUNr 1 Y At LAW 220 MANPLW, `. 1JUILDINO 1554 CALIF 0,2NIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 629-0574 March 13, 1978 Colorado Commission of Education 201 East Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Vickie Gnojeck, Teacher, Keenesburg Elementary School and Rolanda Feeds . Inc. , my Client Gentlemen: Please be advised that the undersigned is the attorney for Rolanda Feeds , Inc . , which operates a dehydrating plant near Hudson, Colorado, and approximately four miles west of the public elementary school at Keenesburg, Colorado. My client has engages engineers and has invested considerable capital in controlling emissions and odors from its plant and in complying with state pollution regulations . The plant is operating free of ommissions and odors . Certain private interests in the area have mounted a movement to prevail upon county authorities to shut down the plant, all without cause or justification on the pretext that the plant emits an odor. The issues raised by the above group have brought about proceed- ings before the Weld County Commissioners and other litigation; and said matters are now pending. One of the teachers in the public school at Keenesburg, Colo- rado, Vickie Gnojeck, is apparently a part of the above move- ment to shut down my client' s plant and has written a letter to the editor of The Keenesburg Valley Sun, in opposition to the Rolanda plant. See copy enclosed. W- are now advised that Mrs. Gnojeck has instructed her third grade students to write a theme , as part of a class assignment, 'on a subject entitled, "How Bad the Rolanda Plant Smells" , or si .:i;ar title. We are also advised that Mrs . Gnojeck advised her students that the themes bearing the highest grades will L_3 published in The Greeley Tribune. Rolanda has a hearing / , vcvAib , 2mac - �V�-U//S' - 2 - scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County in Greeley toward the end of April. The timing of the above maneuver of Mrs . Gnojeck is obvious. In an agricultural area such as surrounds the school at Keenes- burg there are various agricultural activities which produce odor, one of which is a chicken farm which keeps over 100, 000 chickens a distance of less than a fourth of a mile from the public elementary school at Keenesburg. Said farm emits an obvious odor. Mrs . Gnojeck apparently suggests to her third grade students that any odor they might smell eminates from the Rolanda Plant which is four miles distance from the school. Since any disputes or issues concerning alleged odor from the Rolanda Plant are now the subject of County Commission hearing or litigation we feel that an aLtemp by Mrs. Gnojeck to in- fluence the outcome of said proceedings is improper. Obviously published themes written by third grade students in opposition to the Rolanda Plant would be beneficial to the private interests involved in the attempt to shut down the plant. Although Mrs . Gnojeck is entitled to voice any personal opinions that she may choose in matters of community interest or private matters , we take the position that it is improper for her to use her third grade students as a vehicle to amplify her per- sonal opinions or concerns . Should Mrs . Gnojeck persist in her aforementioned plan to publish her students ' themes my client will file a formal complaint with your Commission. Please advise Mrs . Gnojeck or take such other action as you deem proper under the circumstances. Ver truly yours , ANTHONY V.6ARLZNIGO, 13Z . AVZ: jp cc: Vickie Gnojeck, Keenesburg Elementary School Principal, Keenesburg Elementary School Weld County Board of Education Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Rolanda Feeds , Inc . • • • • LETTERS TO THE EDITOR January 24,1978 Dear Editor, I became especially concerned about the terrible smell from the Rolanda Plant when my Elvate•n- tary Students askul, "Lo we HAVE to go outside for rc,cess? It, stinks oit there!" I decided that th,r,:MUST be something I could do and di,coveced the fl- lowing suggestions: 1.) Call Mr. John Hall of the Health Department in Greeley, at 1.35J-4775 (after oliice hours) and complain to him. State the time you noticed the smell, fe,r how long, how severe, etc. I:c..p 'an accurate log and ref••r to it when you call. lie's very helpful and concerned!!! 2.) Write letters to Mr. C..ry Fort nc•r, Di.cctor of Pianr.rnn Scrvc..es fer Weld County, ‘,:.i 10th St.,Greeley,Colo1 ado t.'; .:1 and complain. But, PLEA.;,: d.) so before the deri:,urn de •ilin •of February 7th. Since: 'y, Vickie Gnojcek Keenesburg Elementary - Music Teacher DATE: Febrw 28, 1978 TO: The Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners: If you have no objections, we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 25th of April, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. Rolanda Feeds Inc. SUP, Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility 6509 Weld Co. Rd. 51 Keenesburg, Co. 80643 OFFICE F TH CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: ' ,,.,,,o� Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO .� ; -- � , Ort-t-P4-60-)-- J ANTHONY V. ZARLENGO, P. C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 220 MANPOWER BUILDING 1554 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 629-0574 CERTIFIED MAIL No. 785954 February 25, 1978 Board of County Commissioners weld County P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Application for Special Use Permit ROLANDA FEEDS , INC. Gentlemen: Please be advised that the undersigned is the attcrney for Rolanda Feeds , Inc. , and that I have been retained by my client for representation in all matters relating to its application for special use permit. You have apparently been notified by the Weld County Planning Commission that on February 7, 1978, it entered a decision to recommend against the granting of the requested permit. While I was of record at the hearing before the Planning Commission, I received no official notification or written decision con- cerning said proceeding. Although this letter is to confirm the request filed by Rolanda Feeds , Inc . , for a hearing before your Commission on its application for a special use permit, we may decide to pursue appellate remedy pertaining to the proceedings at the Planning Commission level. I, therefore , request that you contact me before scheduling the actual date of hearing before your Commission. Very truly yours , ANTHONY V. ZARLEI;GO, P.C. 7 ' AVZ :gml sr -r COUNTY OF WELD ss. Filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners I E B2 1978 COUNTY C1 ERK AND RECORDER By /IC' Deputy J v V 4 'YT1 ^'. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT. 400 915 10TH STREET " t ® GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ar Air °.• COLORADO February 15, 1978 Mrs. Nancy Clark Chairperson Weld County Council 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Request by Rolanda Feeds, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a chicken manure dehydration facility proposed to be located on Pt. of the E1/2 of the NE% of Section 31, T2N, R64W of the 6th p.m. , Weld County, Colorado Dear Mrs. Clark: Attached is the Weld County Planning Commission Resolution pertaining to the above described request. As I am sure you are aware, this is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will make a decision on this application once it has been advertised for the required 30 day period. Please contact the Clerk to the Board for the hearing date which is to be set up with the Board of County Commissioners. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, '7g'"4).t.e4, Ken McWilliams Senior Planner KM: sap Attach. ge, C p OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS to) L PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT. 200 P.O. BOX 758 WI O GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 STATE OF COLORADO 's. COUNTY OF WELD COLORADO Filed with the Clerk of the Sonrd of County Commissioners ,1 FEB271978 February 10, 1978 `73-.46—t . Couturvyr MID RECORDER )f 1ialt Rolanda Feeds, Inc. 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Gentlemen: Your request for a SPECIAL USE PERMIT for a chicken manure dehydration facility has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Weld County Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is part of the East Half of Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedure will then be followed. This includes publishing a Notice of Hearing twice in the legal newspaper, which expenses must be paid by you before the hearing day. In order to proceed as quickly as possible, we must receive your reply by February 27, 1978. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered closed. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Ed Dunbar, Chairman rjk I wish to have a hearing on this matter with the Board of County Commissioners. I agree to pay for the legal advertising as noted above. ill vG G'L., �Title: �/ge..) Rolan Feeds y • SENDER Complete items I.t,and i ' -nAdd your address in the "RETURN TO spiacf ah reverse c RECEIPT FO cERTIFi�D WAIL 1. The following service is reques .d (check one). C,d-.-..'-„7::.:7.:r EaE)'r?G_:�,`[?' — O Show to whom and date delivered . ' —;- - ��r 290- C S>T G3 CiiE ;.�i,• .. _f--^ - o Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 (Sce Rev:TM " O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. srly. T`'- o, Show to whom and date delivered 850 Rolanda Feeds, Inc. O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. 9^ O s650 Weld Co. Rd. 51 Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 Po sTartaNu7PCCo; (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other Keenesburg, Co. 80643 fees). POSTACt l� _ _ z 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: — _ o��F_ 1 0 q Rolanda Feeds, Inc. �t; _—_ _— ` — -0 m 6509 Weld Co. Rd. 51 !ti 5'-C'AL CLLIVL b' __-__ rv' -r+ :,fHC_ =oi r ii;1Rv 1 — m Keenesburg, Co. 80643 LL iL, II f m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: r! - y' , .D •,-1, ' j REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. o i r 637211 .t C.tEL 0. C O :1 I a,,1- "r0 I _ - y (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) n is s :,-,-7:70-,;--:;:F.,-7,,)et,-i I m I have received the article described above. LS UEIiL R'UGii,,i'STR.-tu C .� t1 0�IwRV o SIGNATURE D Addressee t� r _ _ O Authorized agent S,,C.:TO V.'J'1 DATE A' O i.f A7vr-sset a- %ER'1 C 2 / O f. RtSTRCTt0 ,,R1'L 6c, C r - - C 4. TOTkLPOCTACEAVM FEES $ O DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK co POS"%A:t OR DATE Z ��: -. p 5. ADDRESS (Cpmplete only if requested) o. t7 rn • z co -I 2/10/78 co G 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAco USE• CLERK'S INITIALS o Letter for hearing (drawer) uo a F sr GOP 1976-0-203 456 1 OI 11( I ( ,1 h (/\I .I ( ' it ( ( 11 If I '( ( ()(,11.11',',I(1111 IS`, `�PI. 1; 1i1` ..� C�._�y IlHUNF: 1303) 356-4000 EX 1 200 P O BOX 758 ' " ORLEE E Y, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO February 1, 1978 Mr. Philip Bowles Citizens Insurance Agency, Inc. Citizens State Bank Keenesburg, CO 80643 Dear Mr. Bowles: The Weld County Health Department sent representatives to the Rolanda Feeds site on the evening of January 30, 1978, after receiving complaints from residents in the area about the odor problem at night. The Health Department recorded an odor violation at that time and has forwarded a copy of the violation to the Board of County Commissioners. We will keep your letters on file so that they may be considered along with other material when the Board of County Commissioners makes its determination on Rolanda' s application for a special use permit. Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. Sin-c rely, / (June K. Steinmark Weld County Commissioner clb .r. I�f.PARli.1t H1 HF- P LANNINH SFHVICFE j;71 1 r n I ,;\ PHONE (303) 356 4000 EXT 400 915 10TH STREET r GRL-ELEY, COLORADO 80631 \ `...�O-177) . -�-ego r��17�'�4� i �Th'I 11 January 11 , 1978 Hrs. Nancy Clark Chairperson Weld County Council 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Request by Rolanda Feeds, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a chicken manure dehydation facility proposed to be located on Part of the El- of the IvE of Section 31 , T2N, RG4W of the 6th p .m. , Weld County, Colorado Dear Mrs. Clark: The above described application by Rolanda Feeds, Inc. has been re-scheduled to be heard by the Weld County Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 1978, at 1 : 30 p .m. Said meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado . Attached is a copy of the air pollution emission permit which was issued to Rolanda Feeds, Inc. by the Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, on November 30, 1977. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, Please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, / Ken McWilliams Senior Planner KH : sap Attachment • \;1 DEPAR'T'MENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT 400 915 10TH STREET I ® GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO January 6, 1978 Stanley L. Stolte 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 RE: Request for a Special Use Permit for a chicken manure dehydration facility on a parcel of land described as Pt . of the Elf of the NE4 of Section 31, T2N, R64W of the 6th p.m. , Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Stolte: Your application for the above described request has been re-scheduled to be heard by the Weld County Planning Commission at their meeting on January 17, 1978, at 1 : 30 p.m. Said meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 015 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be there to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have with respect to your application. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, ;4-e''L.-4r yt.,.6 (.6 trl Ken McWilliams Senior Planner KM: sap sap cc : Roland Nuss 2584 Weld County Road 16 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Lloyd Land 14021 Country Hill Drive Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 OD �!,r --' Of FIC,L OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONLfiS 1\\ PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT 200 P O BOX 758 ® GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO August 25, 1977 Mr. George E. Shaklee 7627 Weld County Road 49 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Dear Mr. Shaklee: Regarding your letter of August 17, 1977, as to why Rolanda Feeds is continuing to operate without a Special Use Permit. When the County determined that a Special Use Permit would be required for this operation, the operator of Rolanda immediately began the process to bring themselves into compliance with those zoning regulations. Consequently, no attempt was made to obtain a cease and desist order. To suspend operations, then and now, would require a court ruling to that effect. If the Board of County Commissioners were to institute such court action prior to the completion of the Special Use Permit proceedings, our legal advisors have counseled us that the operator may well have justification for challenging any subsequent denial of a Special Use Permit on the grounds of prejudice. In land use matters, the Board of County Commissioners is a quasi-judicial body. Should the Board decide, after due process, to deny the Special Use Permit, we are empowered to enforce that decision. However, we do not have the power of enforcement prior to completion of due process. Not only is Rolanda Feeds subject to the same zoning regulations as any homeowner or any other individual in a permit situation, but Rolanda must also be accorded the same due process in applying for a permit after the fact as these other individuals would be. If a homeowner had already begun construction on a house without obtaining a required permit, that homeowner would not be required to tear down the house until obtaining the permit. If an owner A S Mr. Shaklee: 8/25/77 Page Two of a mobile home had moved that home onto property which required a Special Use Permit without first obtaining that permit, the county would not require the owner to remove the home until receiving the permit, but would allow the home to remain until the permit process was completed. Rolanda is being accorded that same due process. The Commissioners appreciate your continuing concerns in this matter and will give them due consideration at the time the decision is lnade. S. cerely, /iC�G�/ �'f, l'L-2v7,-7iWZ-' ()Line K. Steinmark, Chairperson Board of Weld County Commissioners JKS/clb cc Mr. Allen G. Alter Mr. Robert G. Denning I t i4' 0, ; ; I v > =� A - OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUN 1-Y COMMISSIONERS Qt X7 1 J�,,,_.;P r 1 1 11111 PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT 200 P O BOX 758 { ®` GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO August 9, 1977 Mr. George E. Shaklee 7627 Weld County Rd. 49 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Dear Mr. Shaklee: Thank you for forwarding to us your concerns and petitions concerning the matter of Rolanda Feeds. The matter is presently before the Planning Commission and has been tabled until a review can be completed by the State Health Department. Members of the Planning staff, Planning Commission, and a representative of the Board of County Commissioners are to meet with officials of the state and local health departments on August 18th to determine the time frame within which the Health Department will release its findings concerning Rolanda Feeds. According to state statutes and county regulations, matters of this nature must go through standardized procedures. When the Weld County Planning Commission makes its determination concerning the Special Use Permit for Rolanda Feeds, the matter will come before the Board of County Commissioners. At that time, the Board of Commissioners will take under consideration your concerns and the petitions which you have filed with us. I am sorry that more immediate attention to your concerns cannot be given, but the Board believes that it is extremely necessary to comply with the proper procedures in such cases. Please be assured that the Board of County Commissioners is aware of the continuing effects of this operation on the residents in the area, and that we will take those concerns into account in reaching a decision in the matter when the question comes before the Board, $inc�rely, ne K. Steinmark, Chairperson Board of Weld County Commissioners JKS/clb June 28 , 1977 The County Council of Weld Co . Greeley , Colorado Subject: Request For Investigat _on of Planning Commission and Planning Staff Allegations : 1 . Many of the requests for zoning chancre nr for special use permits recommended for approval_ by Planning Staff and Planning Commission are inimical to the best interests of Weld County and to the people in the affected neighborhoods . This is evidenced by the apparent disregard of damage to the environment and social structure in favor of the increased tax base. 2 . In theory , the Planning Staff is subiect to and supervised by the Planning Commission. This theory is apparently belied when one reviews the consistancv and approval of the Planning Staff recommendations recently witnessed at a - Public Hearing June 21 , 1977 t reference Rolanda Feeds without regard to spoken criticism by members of the Board. 3 . Specifically , the Planning Staff has wrongfully recommended that Rolanda Feed Co. , who has operated a commercial feed manufacturing facility in an agri- cultural zone without legal sanction could continue under a snecia_l use perment. To accomplish this , we now have county officials advising as to the means one would use to gain access to legality , after the fact , and circumvent more stringent requirements for rezoning . This might well be disapproved thus eliminating a horrible odor . 4. With our form of government based on checks and balances , we are now requesting this established pro- endure . Our desire is that the County Council investi- gate this matter to a satisfactory conclusion . This will hopefully eliminate the unnecessary hardships that the operation of this facility would cause to countless residents , tourists and property values alike . -2- Conclusions : We are concerned that in this situation as well as many others in our County Government- , the hired technocrats have complete dominance . Further , ; t is of r intention to present to you in the near future , petitions contain- ing the signatures of a sizeable number of people affirming their support of our request for investigation . Sincerely , / C Allen G . Al ter George E . Shalt] ee 8465 Weld Co . R . 49 7627 Weld Co. Rd . 49 Hudson , CO 80642 Hudson , CO 00642 ' > /.1 /2 r Robert G . tuonn i_ng t (3654 Weld Co . Rd. 49 Hudson , CO 00642 1 ti ; WELD COUNTY COUNCIL e_ 7t 9TH AVENUE \ND 9TH STREET OFFICE HOURS y , fir ` MONDAY 1-4 P.M „� 1 GREELEY, CO 80631 TUESDAY 9 A M. - 1 P.M. V. WEDNESDAY 1-4 P M a- lit : PHONE 356-4000 - EXT. 482 I { � • .i�, C COUNCIL MEETINGS ■ ,y. 1,;1" 9 3RD TUESDAYS, 9 A.M.01 p y COLORADO • July 12, 1977 1 I I Mr. Gary Fortner Planning Director Centennial Center . 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Fortner: i The County Council has been asked to involve itself in the matter of F the Rolanda Feed Company's rezoning efforts as per the enclosed letter. Under the charter provisions, the Council cannot make any determination regarding planning and zoning. The determination the County Council must make is whether or not the concerned citizens in the vicinity of Rolanda Feed Company have been given proper consideration. In order to be responsive to the request of the citizens who have d voiced their concerns to us, we are requesting a full report from you ; regarding the matter of Rolanda Feed Company. We would like the report r to include what steps have been taken by the County regarding this matter and what steps are yet to be taken. 6 F Thank you for your attention. i Sincerely, ) ' y ( •(' t V' �; Mrs.) Nancy Clark Chairperson bt E CC: Mr. Glen Paul I Mr. Allen G. Alter Mr. George E. Shaklee r Mr. Robert G. Denning Enclosure NANCY CLARK, PRESIDENT - PHONE 353-3183 BOB E. WHITE, VICE PRESIDENT - PHONE 656-2072 JOHN T. MARTIN, HOME 857-2471 - BUS. 857-6075 FLOYD OLIVER, SR HOME 352-1667 ROBERT P. MARTIN, HOME 356-1054 - Bus. 353-2199 - J J/cJp June 20, 1977 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915th 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Ammendment to information requested and received for a Special Use Permit for a Recycling Dehydration Facility on a parcel of land described as Pt. of El-, NE-i of Sec.31, T2N, R64W of the 6th p. m., Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Honn: Regarding the application and related materials for the above described property, we have been doing some additional testing and feel as though a Scrubber should be installed on the Economy Dehydrator Drier. Therefore, blue prints are being drawn for a High Efficiency Scrubber, which will be designed and built specifically for the 10' X 42' Economy Dehydrator Drier. Installation of the Scrubber is to be as *soon as possible. Any further information regarding the above, will be furnished by a copy of the Blue Prints to serve as an attachment to this letter for the hearing scheduled June 21st, at 1 :30 p. m., by the Weld County Planning Commissioners. Respectfully, G‘j/1/7 Stanley . Stolte President SLS/dls 6509 C5W Uco1 eouw v Lic>ci 7 S i] e NEM:MEML3Oc o COO c. 006-)Q3 1 d 1 l - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Fr 1 PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT. 400 915 10TH STR( ET • y.i O GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 I' y k. t •h A. 1' ?n `4}rl!•f .Ike I i 1y • • 1 N... 44404• COLORADO May 20, 1977 Stanley L. Stolte 6509 Weld County Raod 51 Kennesburg, Colorado 80643 Re : Request for a Special Use Permit for a Dehydration Facility on a parcel of land described as Pt . of EZ , NE of Sec. 31, T2N, R64W of the 6th p.m. , Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Stolte : Your application and related materials for the above described request are complete and in order . I have tentatively scheduled a hearing by the Weld County Planning Commission for June 21 , 1977 at 1 : 30 p .m. Said hearing will take place in the County Commissioner ' s Hearing Room, ls: floor , Weld County Centennnial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley , Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be there to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have with respect to your application. Also, I have contacted the Town Clerk for the Town of Hudson and she indicated the Hudson Planning Commission would review a referral sent to them on this matter for their comment on June 7, 1977. For further details on the Hudson Planning Commission meeting, please contact Loleta Rice at 536-4735. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office . Respectfully, .771/6774.1jet4:6A.4..„ Ken McWilliams Assistant Zoning Administrator KM:bt May 27, 1977 Department of Planning Services Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Special Use Permit Dear Mr. McWilliams: Please note the attached survey lists of which I am sending to your office to be filed with the listed submitted previously. This should be included in the materials which will be requested by the Planning Commission's scheduled hearing June 21, 1977. Thanking you in advance, Sincerely, h D. S S fer Bookkeeper enclosure: � ` ,re X ZSCY CJ'e[ld Cclonly L3cgc7 511 - CKCC.CRS D UL3Co CCM° o CZ 3 Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds IncorpLated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 7,A ,A ---11---1 a�, .� . ..,.�� 77 L;i" �1(-9ze_. ,(�� t O Z-- 46 - c 7 i) �, Y,� 1 i-e-�� ' c - y I/4 >? z� �;. �� x..94 -- ' /M 7,3/* i `-'' Pe la.," I-t te=e-. ....,‘,;---1,,---... 2_2 _4 ,e_1 '7 > Ii '$4.1-. is `'F7 O(4_ ie ', - ,�=�z� tires--��' ki' '`A---i-, 4 p_,./4._ D /f N "Ct in/1.<4"V\ ,•. ) -3 G - 241" 5 A-t-Aik,; (/ efri C-c,;,-ck,rq )..21,1_- 1 ./9-1,- ,--- -,--) If- L)- ';q__- • ./ ,--1/2-7-7„,,,,,-7 /./.,,,,/,_K„, -4i.�b- ' 71-75 77' /.1}1/u��A CO A1.( %12 /%/.07, '<0 ', (////' 21- /_,4' 8 �_)f ' (71-U , AA-A..6?1/t9',& j3e:--JJ3:7 Y : t /�v�'(�/ ,-�. �c' , - 2c�'�' , ---.2.1_,--_//J 7y �/,L.- .t.?2-c-e ( 4/L.t c 6-1-1, ' z. (i-f,Le-zz is 4-l� '_3\-;(— l� /y C1-5-- -1_, (--;9Q(_(-"-ka--"---7Cr 4, <-, .z9/ r--' , , 'K / 0._,,f.,-/ ,.5-r., 4i /i / / _9p, — el le - 417,2 40 P ma�y, _ ,./ .m1 -f1�--2-1,4 p---e-f-,i4,-,e) 424,-- Zetza",[4.44 7C_71.6._..6,Le„..-_ ,:c --, ' 3( "'VII /J lkji--2y-.. ,7(. - X .7 c(,)•,•t,6...,,,- ,.,,t R° Q.,, ii.•.4-5, c G'Y., 117 i 1 /La 43,2 ; 3 -'7'741 SLS/dls d m.........-. Date: Nay 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by RCLA DA Fru )S INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydraticn. Rolando, Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolando. Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. TIAT• , t1DDRL3�S � �/_?/7 PHONE ( 1 *\� �(•.A J i 1 �.f,\-\ . 5:5(L /7/'C- s. �- ) +.ice ''� .('),-,;'C� k_ � �es - i/ , 1 / -'y: - 1 / � - J l, - - 7� � � _ '� el, -___ ?'S 1+L4'A -/'7 / t )6/9 tiC —__� /x. - J c_ii --�__-_._ .1,j; it,, ,1 ?1i- , % l- , ��!,.,k 4 +' J t. ti 1` 5 , - L-J ; I '7 r 7 fie, „,k J‹/s'.' , / ---.1 i--) {{.? yam - ) f -t/I ‘) y f %��`, .7<-" - - (✓�� ;4. f1 ,/) !:'�! t, , ,el. - o,r1 ,, ,,-;-„/ U/.,' i `t-:44 J,�.'. .f- '.�``f,i L ,l.. (' ,- /t/,-/r - • -J `�' / ..,<.) , �',. -� JJ 6 - -,./ 1/ '� ! 2 e!..,/ -/ ,..li ,i — '., J - J , ' i1, ,; j , VrC,,, / r, /, /, . V 1 ,Y I a , �y ' { 4, .;Y , /Z' �yZ,)., tom' ,/ // 1r ST.q/al a • / LITTON SW-TM-if I.NC 1 .Ji't.CIAL US1 f iI t Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Court House Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: . We, the undersigned owners of property located within 500 feet of the property described in the application submitted by Rolanda Feeds Incorporated , hereby petition you to grant this request for Dehydration of Agricultural Productase• corn, poultry waste, barley, oats Signature P.ilailinq Address Dnscripticn of Property • /nf j�VR,,.f ' III it '/ I 4F �1�X1,4�4l vl L. `, (I �( Ls , .l , , , �.4_,(, 4 ,k , / C C L (- 23' V 7 3% 12M- ,e6 `-1 eutt t-el —0-y-oZi A,,,.(oi,ili.,,,, Iva q i 4..C1 &ad ce,- 6,4 _ ..,..„7 __,..,_a,,, )i?,,,,,z, 7 P- ---th,,W Ruben Baumgartner Weld County Road 67, Keenesburg, CO 80643 732 4478 Au-c f, �°'% irfre(--c-' ---a.-4c-r-----t--- e-6-'-a -t41'7_ ce 2 ...4:±-, _ i rt-c---c-o -di-r--,---,-_f_ki—d.i R.,,,,,:,/ '6- Pi'', , --c' t, er-l-t-- ('; (`-i'791 ,) • If ...e • itt.,..„./i,,,-/ (7)-?-',/a-t- i -4- v--;,:y-- 7--,--->%,,,,./(-12, 9/ 2 7 %2f,6)7 //2 C /, _____ Az_v_..e4te,_47,, ,, __, ,- ç726'V3 ° PETITION SUPPORT lNq SPECIAL USE PERt"viIT Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Court House Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: We, the undersigned owners of property located within 500 feet of the property described in the application submitted by Rolanda Feeds Incorporated , hereby petition you to grant this request for Dehydration of Agricultural Productase. corn, poultry waste, barley, oats Signature Mailing Address Description of Property KL( Robert DI Flanigan Blue River Ranch,Krennling, CO. 80459 Russell Lohr 6212 Road 51 , Keenesburg, Co. 80643 John Gratton 24963 Road 16, Keenesburg, CO. 80643 PETITION SUi PUR f lNf SPECIAL USE PLRl r Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Court House Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: We, the undersigned owners of property located within 500 feet of the property described in the application submitted by Rolanda Feeds Incorporated , hereby petition you to grant this request for Dehydration of_grieultural Productisse. corn, poultry waste, barley, oats Signature PAailinq Address Description of Property 1 1.1 ' C7 z of J C �e� /'`'�� AI 23 13% 'fl ti e6 co Stanley R Medsker Box 2327 Vail, CO. 81657 (Partner and Agent for Medsker and Overton Farm Venture) 41 I Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME / ADDRESS PHONE • 9 / / 1 5-34-93-/e 75-2 C� s� 6-z/4 ,�. A ) kaiikC+ 6.4 7 - 99 ;/ .747 _ r ) K p c� .c/�.r C.�"r 732 `1:,31.9 44, 6,) e (0i“3-*r. 3 <-..1 - 3 Y1� �. - y��1 _,s� 3-.3L -7:)o7 ,1*SLS/dls - - , . P.#." r'ee)Aeg\- \r' I d\)cit,JVA Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANIA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thra dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. ADDRESS PHONE e:rotstoy 732 - 9973 /<ge-S✓z.1a-/-G-. -/s..7--y��3 J! X 32 -Ti7 / a .ice-(, - • �._ ..,. , ) i ///I/ /c , ? �� :?® c%� ./,�.�-7 - ? /^ ' / O I� /I, , (----j.dy 11-4P--r, C, 7,3 r. ?�.� , - •5f-//1) 7 , ,fj / 4 f? , .,,uL ' C 7 3_, u '3 v j 1/7 .43• A SLS/dls i • ' . / � l Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ‘ 71z_ s/ .s 3L — ei-F7Z , 9-51; if ed/d 92 7F' _ ,�� , ' ,teeL 0,,,,..p.0 a, • SLS/dls e/ 1 a Ir( 5 dcAcLer4 Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME ADDRESS PHONE ;-y Z '-'- -e P A/9 et/ 6-3 6 - �i'acne) i%7 ,� /�/ l�'ti�U- -`� ,C ,�( /9y4 //H.a_--5': j.'- ,. Imo!- ,;-T5 7 4/, 2&W (‘4 9 Z.r) . 4v .'26)/ i5 c3‘ 7 9y'-'-- t /.'Jir�.v s OL 5Arn S,3ty' `-{:rSe t „,„, A-. • - --d-k , - -%- 19?2' cc b 1 kJ, 3 V -/20 — (1 -, _..,..,1:.)-)I.aiyo-c )7././AA 46(_/...7J-ef_Ir-R-1 , ,‘,3 L-7,.2. 4;- I ' ,,,,„ g,v)2,,,,,,,_e ,,,A,„_,,,,, 7,-.,,_,,,,z , , 2.J-a -YYX1 Q- ' / 73 - $26 -- of - 2sue — y.�`g P " /( n ,,........44,4„; 7 3 1 - .t 30/ 1 7 1 . `/ ? / 7-3� - ( , -:/ �'� � 3�- 'S'� o �'��ia.�f' 6):_ � i_ �-e.p!i.eS oar 1 7 3-2 - llg6 I �� -e_ z 73R -V,f?-0 e'-e- C72e' "5) ,Y..�?er /4. Z '7j-2 - 96,9 / SLS/d s <e_' . c"j' v Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAi ADDRESS PHONE reg)/d 536 '17 4, vi J2 (- Ed ,, , � f'OOlt)t 7 (///(1 �/. hrce nx/ Ccia ,J-.3 6 -Y.26 S ) n-sn - i €" O4" C'ulG 5-3G-V J6 - .13 /'7-//o re/ fit, /re �'y' .z Z) .172e ss 7/7z lL i / 11 7_/Ji JaPII i srx s 3 6, ---�f wo �! tsi-e 5-3‘ - 5`?7,/ SLS/dls , S ' a S 6'4 Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all ecuipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME ADDRESS HONE ‘.2 CP 556-- y2-Cr ' r s I-1 '4✓� /Y`'‘‘)._)r4�`•,•.�Q rc ,O()P-,j 1'` C" 1�1` �..L X ,1\,,.rs��J tl71�.-, -- ) i 1 ,--,:-'f i. f'� A �/' U, %Sa- %; 'Z ,L�� S' J(9 - - 7/6 - ...,,•-„� 9 r.� e 6. )r 4113 ilkdio.0 5? - 4)Qr ? aim '^r,•`' Wirt 6� ,o_>,,,.--- _-- O1._S d i r ,,C,) - Lk, ?:" , IN lit;JG C., 2 C � LA.)) � b - L r_c L U`L511'' .A-4 A-'--z.-.l�- L-C/Ytt ').V.Z-.I4....4-4.--/40 t,r1•'1 1 L" `Z (1.- (/') v 6 li V( �) ,. e/��,(1,r r/ , ,,,---/c ,' , ,(1,,o , ) 53!,- cl7aci,e , , 1, ,,, r, ,,,A ,N-1,5._.L ( -) r � ( ,' o X 7 3 �t�J�0--ri'ar) la)Infl, ,��- t'- ,, _- ' )310- 4/c,'{‘90 r11"l. J-blti�.1x.44.- " - c �' __ - 1.1-1/1,-,,,t/-- i, ,e,-,vt-0-el/I/4474/Pr1/ YY 5-3 ‘.-- (7/c- 3 A/ rAv '-' \Kya---/e/( t"Ra4 %,,la_A___d---i----7 j'43e/-1-1 it- r' MI4 fl'Z/O) iv,7 fife). I/VI a 41 o z-, en- " 3C, <13 Fit d 3 2X SIISidls v C Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA ELMS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. 00144.,./. ._ ADDRESS PHONE SLS/dls V ' .1 11, (A-is'&,e,� at e'�`�J Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME ADDRESS PHONE t .4L/ie , ig:1 1-1) ,a 67,-..z.- __< / .ttf Iirvk _53b ---/7,57 �/ r,-a 6;4 y ,&/-,2&4-4-A,67 .S3 G `/4 72 1-1,x.,,, e-i-- S 3 ( -we n aedez r';e1,- ---c-,..,.7., A-:,_.e‘e„,a_.,4_ __3 7V) 677..f -VY/11 . r-r:I) ) 1-t 0r-) 5-.74 - Sl y', _.;?-,_. -1. ,e, 1 /7c�-.av cry, . (o e, _-S"j G- -S/�1�� ,'% ,,, %7..� -,,, et.-4 5 3 (,.- �_J7( At .m.� ) Alu(loch cam) Aztom , (o', 536-9a 3 6 a,,,,,0 Q 11.x. c,-eo 3G -Lt 8yC( -,--,, dJ 2-1/41,0,-;;16- . .,6"34 --4/k &1-4-1--ejniit- -e-c/kx-gr(_ 19 ,f-,,d4-,,-)1_ L Jas 4,'4 F/'-J.,,, 'te ,'r f If t ,4"'-q-)-Veff 4 _i_AL.g....d .fie,,:V gaieLev ,(a ..cA L- li HI } 00 RI B 1,,Dc"ve Est-- ry 1("U �_ —._.- oZ,3..b--/,,p gi,e.a Leo 'Wiz 6-‘56. - y,3 xf�a.k.,(„6 . ,--ci, a 3 i r_cJ.,a�.P P�j 41 4-3 6--44/FJ. 0_,(9--,-„,") ,.._.7?-O-6.--- 2 3 a 5/ 'id o.J a .0 q ,5-<-36 - V,U.S— SI,S/dls '/ Al Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. NAME ADDRESS PHONE �..el.-1 .�.c� _5.3d , 1J3 Z7/;‘,s.r---L-kr2 s 4) -1-•_4?.?/, ', l l("/o ; A./11-,Li.:;--7-2, z.dry 7 V` r' ' '/ ' -�--er S:36 - 2{ l4Z �� c /4 a.4 5% X7575 6.5-34'it ,,,3 3i' 9,9 - (0 _y� /2_-- 4 " L-- -\.\ 1\6- , e t< (1 j36—44C7 1 lu l I /( Jd 1;175/ E 4 . s , 9 5- : � - 4/9 f4 ' 4 � ��0-r _ 6 , , I )1 `f / .-C .,at �, S / ),---S -- (1(-1q9 Li cel o1(,)-1 ,,- ah -11 '1' . `_,/ , f o, WP-i. ,JMI__ , /.;=-3 kf Lf SLS/dls v SLS/dls %, t `1 ' • , V1f/� " - ;1 6 Date: May 04, 1977 This survey, submitted by ROLANDA FEEDS INCORPORATED to attain endorsement from the general public, within a five (5) mile radius, pertaining to the recycling of poultry waste thru dehydration. Rolanda Feeds Incorporated operates all equipment under the Air Quality Control Standards and laws set forth by the State of Colorado. We the undersigned feel Rolanda Feeds Incorporated has been and will be a beneficial aspect and future business associate. AME . ADDRESS PHONE b 1 . � who ' /-4 6s—y— 6)715— / .1 ' Lam!._ . o L .5-36J . ��/ j7h}�y / // 73z- e-/39i/ i.�z -r, . ��- . 7�' �� / C 73 - 3 9(// I---....---/c...r.,,, a „dry- ip/p / (.., 7.44ec, lre.,4,-/ .. - .60.3 Ige. e4 ,,5-3e, 1W,1., 427j,./ --..f.....$2,-, ,:,t - 5_3 E -gg72 / ,/it sv :.-x. 71,2—I/s / ��„ ' ,2e �� 72-5/.. 12. ✓ s��,,. �.SSL``t Cb.`ZA a ' ct A``543La-t-ti'S?:19:, i ' SLS/dls i Fr:-.7qp-)6Z, It ill VIC, June 20, 1977 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915th 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Ammendment to information requested and received for a Special Use Permit for a Recycling Dehydration Facility on a parcel of land described as Pt. of E , NE* of Sec.31 , T2N, R64W of the 6th p. m., Weld County, Colorado Dear Hr. Honn: Regarding the application and related materials for the above described property, we have been doing some additional testing and feel as though a Scrubber should be installed on the Economy Dehydrator Drier. Therefore, blue prints are being drawn for a High Efficiency Scrubber, which will be designed and built specifically for the 10' X 42' Economy Dehydrator Drier. Installation of the Scrubber is to be as soon as possible. Any further information regarding the above, will be furnished by a copy of the Blue Prints to serve as an attachment to this letter for the hearing scheduled June 21st, at 1 :30 p. m., by the Weld County Planning Commissioners. Respectfully,\ATiStanley . Stolte President SLS/dls 6509 'Meld Cfcrm;fir Round 51 - ITUA E5TIN G, COM. flee;l3 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER Ray /9) 1112 NAME eis REQUEST su P- b•elkAzeDe-og-itt _ aL`12-- LEGAL DISCRIPTION -� /�} S,o/1 „ 3r ,fk Lt) LAND USE N E S li w 1/ ZONING N LOCATION 3 ex..„eat )1/0- /v•L A) A— 14-Jser7k. s w COMMENTS : r edi � � tai IN 1)3 ,�� . • L+A.L-•, pAjjatrYl,k4A0 - ZA-"A-oe . By NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 78-21 Rolanda Feeds, Inc. 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Date: April 25, 1978 Time: 7:00 P.M. Request: Special Use Permit, Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land located in the East-half of Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Said Section 31 and considering the East Line of Said Section 31 to bear South 00°00'00" West and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto: Thence South 00°00'00" West along the East Line of Said Section 31, 2752.65 feet; Thence North 90°00'00" West, 140.00 Feet; Thence North 00°00'00" East, 75.00 Feet; Thence North 87°46'30" West, 1098.55 Feet; Thence North 00°12'30" East, 2609.35 Feet to a Point on the North Line of Said Section 31; Thence North 88°48'10" East, along the North Line of Said Section 31, 1,228.50 Feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 75.135 acres more or less including the county road rights-of--way along the northerly and easterly boundaries and 72.415 acres more or less excluding said road rights-of-way. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTIY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY C'TERK AND RECORDER AND CrFRK TO THE BOARD BY: Rita Jo Kummer, Deputy DATED: March 20, 1978 PUBLISHED: March 23, 1978 and April 13, 1978 in the Fort Lupton Press NOT,CE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held In the Chambers ,of the Board of County Com,,,issione3 of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street,Greeley, Colorado,at the time specified All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are re- quested to attend and may be THE BOARD OF COUNTY heard. COMMISSIONERS BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the WELD COUNTY,COLORADO text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Com- BY:MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN mission may be examined in the COUNTY CLERK AND Office of the Clerk to the Board RECORDER AND CLERK of County Commissioners lo- TO THE BOARD Cen- tennial in the Weld County Center, 915 10th Street, BY:Rita Jo Kummer,Deputy Third Floor, Greeley Colorado. DATED: March 20, 1978 Docket No 78-21 Rolanda Feeds, Inc Published in the Fort Lupton 6509 Weld County Road 51 Press Keenesburg,Colorado 8O643 First Publication• March 23, 1978 Date: April 25, 1978 Second Publication April 13, Time. 7:00 P M 1978 Request. Special Use Permit, • Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land located In the East-half of Section 31 Town- ship 2 North Range 64\Nest of the 6th Principal Meridian,Weld County, Colorado and being more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Said Section 31 and considering the East Line of Said Section 31 to bear South 00°00'00"West and with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto' Thence South 00°00'00"West along the East Line of Said Section 31, 2752 65 feet,Thence North 90°00'00"West, 140.00 Feet; Thence Nor u, uu•00'00" East, 75.O0 Feet; Thence Nortn d7.48'30" West, 1098.55 Feet' Thence North 00'12'30" East, 2609.35 Feet to a Point on the North Line of Said Section 31; Thence North 88°48'10" East along the North Line of Said Section 31, 1,228.50 Feet to the Point of Beginning Said tract of land contains 75.135 acres more or less in- cluding the county road rights- -of-way along the northerly and easterly boundaries and 72 415 acres more or less excluding said road rights-of-way 0 � c NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 78-21 Rolanda Feeds, Inc. 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Date: April 25, 1978 Time: 7:00 PM Request: Special Use Permit, Chicken Manure Dehydration Facility LOCATION: Approximately three and one-half miles Southeast of Keenesburg, Colorado. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Rita Jo Kummer, Deputy DATED: March 20, 1978 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. NOTICE COUNTY OF WELD ) Pursuant to the zoning laws of 3 ) the State of Colorado and the e,c,�, I /G�c-.• g Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing wilt be held in the duly sworn, says ` he/she is pnb Chambers of the Board of County usher of the rib71 \ VALLEY SUN, Commissioners of Weld County, a week:y newspaper published and Colorado, Weld County Centen- printed in Keenesburg in said County nial Center, 915 10th Street, and State; that said newspaper has Greeley, Colorado, at the time a general circulation in said County specified.All persons in any man- and has been continuously and un_ ner intereste in the Special Use interruptedly published therein, dur- ing a period of at least fifty-two Permit are requested to attend consecutive weeks prior to the first and may be heard. publication of the annexed notice; BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the that said newspaper is a newspaper text and maps so certified oy the within the meaning of the act of the Weld County Planning Commis- General Assembly of the State of sion may be examined in the Colorado, entitled "An Act to regu- Office of the Clerk to the Board late the printine of legal notices and of County Commissioners, loco advertisements," and amendments thereto; that the notice of which the ted in the Weld County Centen- annexed is a printed copy taken from nial Center, 915 10th Street, said newspaper,was published in said Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. newspaper, and in the regular and Docket No. 78-21 entire issue of every number thereof, Rolanda Feeds,Inc. 6509 Weld Co.Road 51 once a week for .---__--__-_. sueeessive• Keenesburg,Colorado 80643 weeks-, that said notice was so pub- Date: April 25, 1978 lisped in said newspaper proper and Time: 7:00 P.M. not in any supplement thereof, and Request: Special Use Permit, that the first publication of said no- Chicken Manure Dehydration 6e Facility tine as aforesaid,/was an the y 67 - Location: Approximately three /-/ t" '0 and one-half miles Southeast of day o 19 Keenesburg,OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and the last on the day of WELD COUNTY,COLORADO By:Mary Ann Feuerstein r- 19 County Clerk and Recorder /1-''Cli r)� �� and Clerk to the Board t By:Rita Jo Kummer,Deputy DATED: March 20, 1978 Published in the Keene Valley Sun April 20, 1978. Subscri vd and sworn to fore me this day of ote,Aa 19.28 . 42-o-9_,,„.4, )itz-c-1,))6t-Z-4 f2-i--eL__. ' a-- :i Expires Iebruary 7, 79 ' , r�Inl t hr' 01 I-ico of ,coo 1oy, Col oratio ' '('III': 13C)Aki) 1)1' COti(1'l'Y 11111SS.J ONERS WI;T,1) COU:1'I"1' , COI,OI:AI)O _ March 21__1978 r l (9 Publisher : Please i n:,er L the one: l o:;ed not ice i n your i :;',un ':ho wok or April 17, 19.78 _ - one Lime only. Iln(la r(l i nil p iynir'n i , toll,!) 1 c,Lc t-hc' onclo:;('rl k'oucI)''r and 1orw,lyd i t. Lc) ii:; . l'dhon roi-urn 1 n(l l--h1. 'lr)llr'hOr, pi ,,arr' I iv; lude an riLfidavIl of 1)n1)1. ic',1I toII so ',:r' may. L;Ou1J91r'LP our - ii l (,:, . Than]: you for your cooper,'Lion . Sln('o) (. 1y , DOCKET /l 78-21 '1'111': liO/tl:i) ( II' ('I )liN'1'Y ('O?1(-11 SS 1 ONE: 1\11,T 1) COUN'T'Y , COLORADO BY : Miry Ann 1'ouor ;l'nln ('o;ln Cy (' l curl: and Recorder and '1 ,,r1: Co the Boa. -d C t.:- -1-W�'C/VL�� By t=lam i Deuty County Clc'rl., a, • SENDER Complete items I.2,and i 'Cr; Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on 3 reverse. -s-- -- m 1. The following service is requested (check one). fa Show to whom and date delivered 25c --g _ _ _.,_. _ _ __ < O Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 4541 RESTRICILD DELIVERY. „ -- I cn Show to whom and date delivered 854`ELI RY. rp POSTMARK Show to whom,Ddate,and address of delivery ..$1.05 r- KEENE VALLEY SUN 07 DATE (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and othersr ,T"I:7 r, „ fees). r-- DRAWER E 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: 0C v0 STATF WO /IP COOS `U KEENESBURG CO 80643- _ 3/23/78 KEENE VALLEY SUN CV I' h7TIL J',! CL1CItES I Cr% >!c�'T,C'RI Pros - - Z CI' ! r--r, -r, 9, a., t0 i 2 _-?c .'c1.crcl 15¢ A CI' 4 DOC hS-21 i nth Jc, .c ...Arc only 65( m R GI_i?T t7 ' ``�� 2 S'.:-r,to r-r _rte c�;] :,�rr dcllvcrcd 350 in 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: �i -1,,, ir, t'Ath do,v,c,,,*-) -l_rraco only CL- 1 ri -- -- -85�-- REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED AO. r;- 0 .0J 1SSS.._ PUY 50C = - rrtr .Y (;7.-0,o car a,. r�=)) m I 640708 I'v ',�14ri' . 0VI©LIB— (Soo olhor cid y (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) +^nn nNnlp - ' "-, o-551-.5 m I have received the article described above. rnSIGNATURE ❑ Addressee 0 Authorized agent ur.,'AY`.ydi"o'r4_""a .��,.1:.x - '�' _ -- C4. 1 _ M i4(DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK ----- _ p nmq.!•T ism 7)N.. 1' -''s -' k, - - , ,., S. '."-L'--.:4:,".7" '*'7-F - ) ' I, I it^�(• Z 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) aw .+ w' r \` m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: .f, -,_i'- (: tERK'S O ----INITIALS C D r u' GOP 1976-O-203-456 � -' r. �,,. ^.. ".r'4'''' a,ry.'(' ' `-..... .'-11,o,•— '-.,_ AV H;.c;r,.. ''•••k -<",` yam,,.. s .n - t j..,'. `y`"'so,..0.•••••4°' —q k . .raw ✓ • • • Ill e zOYO a, c ea WZQM 5 o o ale▪ -Joa 3 L ▪ Um -I c a JWZW m N r e < WU<F E ii c ZyWp R e o 0 ZZOF Y L « o <OO ; o c 4 a m00 x 11 15 e f a m < g,26-em 0 aaLL.-mom Zees•-pTmoco a ee i ev . - ,,;c a tiV i a_vL—c - ' •«m4-..007 «—«ea E5E5`ocro .c'h «co— $ : v $ o 've a �vmv �m eso e o a .3s c—ca Es 3«ec ewd=eg $w $ ar1 ..— ccc..s ¢5 ;v cv3o.-icce- "loca ` ewe o! co$�e L ose 3m WcafWv�p «,aP N ZW< e ve.- in o—. %.2.0)," o v H p$ •-`om.L • _ o c ep— P 2 Pe.oaopoaA$�veE $�cccm �$ ... �' 3$v� 0t.�e.3 $�. - c� o o� tro00 �oeL LSO ..e«a Z _C«O7 (� �`• 11" C G. 8 b C-O 1 O 0Lav VSJ OaJ o ►nO-C z.....2,70-a,... LLco A J Z *�9e ZOJea� go � O-row a04�i� LLpO _V N,- m Sec—`E� O $± � wo ' °' a O ooeoa «v«ate« • �� g $ V4 ��w C. o piU �< . 8_xY a c c F . c 1. • ev $ O r: 2-653~toi cde Y�e4.E ox: c as -2i. 4 E $ �,S. wW°-$..g: .- 3 a §. 2 c c'tet•Z Ql� O UJ o—Pii a'b_ ,,,e—E ► i ¢ jQ i _ ac .�e`E...q.S3 <Oz = o �P E�Uoo e`• Oe..O o �o i. o3 _nae no �o�oec--aaao _ v— co..) c o = ►e e q ac . o ar-8'42U u Cy'L..,5„c°owNO r C'r o orz-st.$Pc�� O go E --=o s. Uo-- o an rue `c• ps Oo Je... .. o...•• oo c P - tome .? o•- oe -6....000eec0oqq m p er tov .cc <Eo Z."'" z w ro—U— o. ` Lip Z Z Z c2 m `i 1�"' t c'-C L r LL .r o. =a�VcOawgo HaU�occ g 8 < $ � za ''1..c ► $�«�— i w— Lco «e•-e oL I O La O O.:e E C '-o x m 0 J J ML L« a PO o O� e c Cp LL 1ff a!J "C OatO P) E p F J omv—EEc--B8. 0.Ewevs.ago a Y ye- O < :p.N-..,,,c_- ,--..-4„. .. • LCBCPQ_ coce w 4Le.C Q..O..Ecn7$mMoa.rUoC= op.., a < 0036-2m OCmO.L..oFO o$,ChL LOt,,CCe� py-Blt-$a «3 OC�CJ(JUd1i.can O'L EO 08 H J W e!U E.. U 8mo O E q ZLLF1JH«FNZF A O. N(7)43a2 0 _ o a a •d .� c n o a o a o c ., •• 4 N q c a ° A ' J aNw a� b mow .-, c a, � ., 0 3 5 3 C o •v w ° ai o ty 3 U 0 F a i ; a 0 •u NO o7 •� C >~ > „+'y., ch,o N w Ent) b >' �., o an o o *, o a o • a . N acs c ca ca y 0 y `d W �,- " c. 'O u m �, a� m q m ) o W al >, 0 t. t0 g i. g C > r. a _ V! a7 • ur v F-. O ��crr3 ,,,, .7' F ,- 'O a^., c0 �J' GJ w O. �0 - ` W a Y v a) o ° .0 Fi N V] 0 Val • 3 .-, o .1 ° al f/] O .a.. a c , at c a, 8 w, O a1 o w " a) o 3 ,-"n c ,o 0 o a'• ti ° a jcu V J; w 3 N a o o m ° . m z c o 1 �, C r . Z l .� -mil: a ,1 O e. }' p, d Q O d c° o Y F >, c°1 ,o v ,� v ro °; .,., "U A cy ol. E•y y �c .l,i u) a ° cC o 0 .�` .0 O ,C o i0i a ?, •0 0 � ',. o u 000 r t a°J a 3 v a °�' oo 0 Y 2 a � ¢ mg ac mr � 03En '; da, U ate, C 0 � 1ri i O o b b w on ti ca ra M— .c p cd cs cu o ,o aa', c cu u, c ..' w a°, a as ° ° U a O o c w '4. _- o _ • 3 0 c ate, •,/,'". 0 x o v g w c4 ° '1 ai 7-1. '‘..) a` cu LL o o A '� x a ° p c��a vz '' a°° coo ab a`, a, o A ,o ,��`� z o I o o >, y E. •N C 0 ,d a v 01 a1 p er•+ a, < rs 'U j �?' cs ,,a U '' -,�9 cd COy O G w O w0 c3 .O-+ N G by al .C .". p �' +�.' O ��f:. b Cam�+, w° 0 _N +L-+ o G1 v ° +«-, g y O �., ....) :80 g O 0 4 Cn R L". L. 6'17) r. d .", b v O .- >' c, y a .cy a)t J C r., c•• +' •�'V N o w :7; b a1 g .� al 0 a1 -0 p o c> O ,c .` o a1 3 C A Ca p ',_ °u r o o .0 m o •-• o o u 0 ° c a n b E a, '� d + a cn ,0 m Ul 3 ;-. :� 3 g 4, a o a a E 3 a>, a 5 u a, ",a. <4 v°i ^ CO ,a', '1 >400��S =NCO c G WZ¢¢ ° a CI ZZ¢ a~i<-•r0 0 o t — 0O ¢ Um 0 co J o `a LL_0 ",CC,.,J = o a . < O2 WU<$. E u. c O } °-t¢0 = N 0 C C <OZ ZZO~ Y . L. « o w ¢UV = M v n F W ¢ >- W apa c 3m I- aooaoom „,>" < =m-poa 0 ao_a•.w.- "6.4006..-y oco �.c ...t'ooc•"c—LeC c« �G�OC a{i� .,'c o .• CON 98O __O - • o co«e._, E o oca Eli; oc��y5 0 -rao CO vav a9 cv3��acce: i ° m. 5- ; e3o oi°�o' 8000r6c t^Woc c .C 'i c vas.. a o .c o o� —I- a r.-.-r�rr 3 L♦ 3 cg oo sow 0i CI eo ��o�ooE oo« ¢ ¢o d9 cho k-,_ . _ o c0°C?Aw SopLmo-0160..10 Z2 rcct8 5>4 '' $ 3O9C age,3 ga•_ _ G` o., om O c cy 'o .ao—c •—c oogT LL's $ 0 c co c 81 0 Cu.o10..122« W Net$•Cc3eo_oEa OM..E«aC4 �`� CP $ci Z •to oorac• :v 3 g AtC� `"L o .. £0c= P Z$a E�ap ��v` d .0'65_-20.2.g,. 5o•�ooc 8-'10- . . : n8 .5e,..21:1 O U of 3 vowa� aoW""8.. ^ 84-12k r c ogees i «_ w U_ r. o d ¢ ¢o m "L Z)010 a o .� g _ �.c —,�'` ID 2 o gel _ a c3 v ao!a YL1-moQ�o1eo _ w . eoEo£yi3 oeroE e==eme . 6x.0**-C a- 0 3a �84'f co .;-,0"13o8 c4f-c•' WNo C. o_to a o8wcI..p 5.3g6"8 .'"'"IC c•Q Z a..•• 000c - w - tX _o rx .o=Z--moo coo: �o� co c <EvE� C)s N <P. C3., o�Vr c"-C ''t o—. O•.0.0LL000r;�ol-oo Noma -c 0.4e- h-v oec $o« t.2.- a a o- o9f«i� o Z ZLL.Z 0_ .00)o. -BP« Emv°Eee«gooEoa�W�v" cv'-°v d Y oEg- Q «ra.-C" 3""-26 30 c= su 8�WIIJ8 c`obnwa��Ea 4.....a-ooc )..o•'-al —L.:Uoc.. �— t�' apco3oc—.. �3owO=,_ o o1�• pp m0 mc ONION W <8aoo,omocpo.tvHo i=E.ElN0gco.C....Epol--3t- M3cCxgc3Um=�%QC .o�E0001oH J WOat•0E.o. 08cnote IO ZLL A .-1€09Z1 &�ACJ43Si2 o o r p ° p c ° a c� v o C o o0 m �, Gl 2: .0 o rj rli ti y U a, w a b � W c v o o g m • a p c v F v s. °� d y 0 F F y P. c •A a-, i 4-, < ._ F v W ° 0 rn a F p0 ca ° 1 '.' '� r) o a.U .a .., 'a u7 a y •° aC) a) a) d a) i ° .o-, p'' 0 c' Q) i. m 6 d 4 p 0 .3 0 a' 0' ..'• b ..-` ° 7 a) w u] . �� •n o i.- rilN 'd .sue `� O W a, '-' bbC ,G v O O C) y 'd y dJ Ell 0 N GE �� a) ° w �,�-� ill N +o-' — , GG ° c a. g - d a ta F a) 0 ° `� v a o °' z a a. ca s-. a ° o m ro m v ° ° u, c A •o ff, . M I) Z 3 ro CC O u o ° a m u, g b W o ° 0 ° ° F ° a s2 0 a N• 'c a c b a -. •c •�, • c ° ° ° m U " o a .. Q x �'''_.� o w 0 y(� p a a a a x a v a ° 3 a ca ° C.} > p co N c) 0 b 'C cd W cri 3 Vl F h ° H ° w m". U' F a b 'd n c ° A ° a p 1 g cam) °' a-•) 'o g 3 1� 3 O R: a v° ° F a) aa)i 3 U, , ' 't7 ,0 at �' 0 a) ' U � oh 0 °° ° • tiUo � ° o s .A " � ° ado w � � w� 0 a, ho a �\\ L 'W�7 • Q'W Y N a) O 'd 3 �+ a 0 'C1 F0 W A . 3 v o •rFs' F o ,- ° 0 a) 0 • P.G a caa d fl O y n7 v� a N o . U ...r. ° F o a) o 0 •1 a, E C6 bA E• .' :=.. g µ-1 '� N ' W m�� c� ';`' 1 Q�J F �^ E U�" F a) '0 G 0 " o y a) g o ^ t cd p CL r, 0 4 Zr. 3 A " p c°) ° 1 a' 0.) ° c ° o o °3 0 aa) ,,, c x, o 0 a c E ., > a) 0 0 s 0 c� ;0 p aj a> m ,-i 1 3 7-- v .O 0 .' a o a a.. F 3 o a ° . c) a ,-, rn F ,--i Request : _Legal Doscripti on,P-fE'Avr 4i.Seti, Al� J Date By Application Received 61/ -7 — ;e74---- Application Fee - Receipt # ? 1S Og' ---- 7ell -� Recording Fee g __ _ Application Complete 1 ?.C. Hearing Date : �U4,Ae az (q'27 - -�-- ___-- Letter to Applicant Drafted SP171_ Referrals Listed S////7 7_ Public Notice Drafted - Field Check by D.P.S . Staff — ONIPEMMIlmir Sign Posted by : i File Assembled --- --� Referrals Mailed -Q59- - ---Q, ThR Legal Check to County Attorney -- ______ Legal Approved by County Attorney Chainde xed 5—O--(79 R-----1 Notification of Applicant •'��' -- `\. Public Notice Sent Out by: /Y)4- 04044___ __........... Sign for P.C. Meeting Prepared ) t7 - 7/O4.-- C�/ Property - Surrounding Owners Researched -/Airphoto/Vicinity Map Prepared i 1 = _- ' ---- CZ Property Owners Notified by : Z ,te g 7- 76. � ---- -r- 1 - Agendas A•I .i l e d by : �j� „h C t 13, 11-7-2 1 / 3 -- 11 -_— Referrals - Complete] Preliminary D.P. S. Staff Comments _____—__ _ - -- Staff Conference — -- — D.P.S . Comments \- ' -\ �\- � - 7-.-.. ),! _ . ss� @ .c P.C. Hearing Action : N.,3. 1 =1`t Q S--,- - P.C. yResolution . , --\. % e' Case Sent to Clerk to Board ,� - Sign Posted `'�/ C.C. Hearing \k'WN` Actionl Z-Air -- c C.C. Resolution Received \2\%, 'Of History Card Complete "."`o %.R. C.C. Resolution Sent to Drafting Drafted on Mylar --- Document Sent to Clerk FL Recorder --- -- -- P.C. Minutes — _-_\ -- — - — - Case/Fil e Complete - --- - --- - SPECIAL USE PERMIT Al PLICATIC�i Vuelc County Planning Commission Services Ruildin , Cnloradk FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: CASE NUMBER: PC HEARING DATE: SEC: TWP RANGE: CC HEARING DATE: LAND CODE: T: S: 1/4: KEY: SUB/IDIV CODE: SUB BLK: LOT: KEY: REFER TO: PERMIT FFE: A2 S ,DC) 1) DATE: APP. CIII CKED PY: >f/:7,7 5:11 574-7-7 2) ATE: RECEIPT NO. R'�y- `- 3) DATE: LEGAL DI-.SC. APPRVL: 4) DATE: s' ID Per TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL GUIDE REQUIREMENTS: Print or type only, except for necessary signatures: I, (we) the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Lomr^ission concerning a proposed Special Use Permit for the following described unincorporated area of Weld County: LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Use Permit is proposed: A tract of land located in the East 2 of the Northeast 1 of Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P. M., County of Weld, State of Colorado. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA : See Attachment — —' STREET LOCATION: 6509 Weld County Road 51 69 sire J �o 4'3 ZfhiE Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Dehydration of Agricultural products including: corn, barley, oats, poultry waste, REASON : Livestock feed FEE OVThIERS OF AREA PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL USE: 57/- //oz NAME: Stanley L. Stolte ADDRESS: .502 Weld County Rd 31 T L1_ : 659 1609 NAWE: Roland L. Nuss ADDRESS: 2584 Weld County Rd 16 TEL: 536 9278 NAME: Lloyd L. Land ADDRESS: 14021 Country Hill Dr TEL: 659 3153 I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the bes; of my knowledge. COUHT`f OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO ) S. - Signature: :// er or Authorized A,,ient Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of _ April , 1977 /Ju(11 X/ 7 hiL A) NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL My Commission expires January 20, 1980 TRIAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE EAST-HALF OF SECTION 31 , TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31 AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION31 TO BEAR SOUTH 00° 00' 00" WEST AND WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO: THENCE SOUTH 00° 00' 00" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 , 2752.65 FEET; THENC2 NORTH 90° 00' 00" WEST, 140.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH-00? 00' 00" EAST, 75.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87° 46' 30" WEST, 1098.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 12' 30" EAST, 2609.35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE NORTH 88° 48' 10" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 , 1228.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 75.135 ACRES MORE OR LESS INCLUDING THE COUNTY ROAD RIGHT OF WAYS ALONG THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES AND 72.415 ACRES MORE OR LESS EXCLUDING SAID ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I DO HERBY CERTIFY THAT, UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION, THIS PLAT AND T.F;AL DESCRIPTION WERE PREPARED AND THAT THE CORNER MONUMENTS INDICATED HEREON WERE PROPERLY PLACED DURING AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE LAND COMPLETED ON APRIL 25, 1977, AND THAT DURING SAID SURVEY, ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE OR. KNOWN TO ME WERE LOCATED AND ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN ON THUS PLAT. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS BY AND/OR ON THIS PROPERTY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ROBERT A. SHORT REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, COLORADO REG. NO. 7242 vw • , )if • ,,4 Referrals May 12, 1977 Rolanda Feeds, Inc. Special Use Permit County Attorney County Health County Engineer Hudson Planning Commission Loleta Rice, Clerk Town of Hudson Hudson, CO Ron Heitman 14502 County Road 6 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Edward Kerbs Hudson Fire District Rt. 2, Box 227 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 WELD- COUNTY COLORADO For Action To Planning Commission Date May 19 , 1977 M �i n For Info To Your Action Or Reply Is Required ,.- Subject: Roland Feeds , Inc On Or Before Special Use Permit An on site inspection made May 17, 1977 indicates this request is in operation at this time . Any drainage created by this request such as private roads , asphalt areas , etc. , must not be dumped on county right of way . Said drainage to be diverted north on private property. There is a bad erosion problem along the west side of County Road 51 in the area of this proposal . 4472„e„.0,-‘4—, e'rea-erz"C---• i man E. Olson mfm 1A�4 /J BOARD OF HEALTH ivy etc/ County health Department DAVID WERKING DDS,Greeley FRANKLIN 0 YODER, MD, MPH RALPH AAB Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BLICK Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE Greeley (303)353 0540 DONALD HERGERT Windsor ANNETTE M LOPEZ Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS JR M D Greeley KATHI EEN SHAUGHNESSY Ault • JOE STOCKTON Grtcresl February 1, 1978 Mr. William Auberle, Director Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Dept. of Health 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Dear Mr. Auberle: We request that the Emission Permit, No. C-11,328, issued to ROLANDA FEEDS, INC. on November 30, 1977 be revoked, based on our department's odor findings of January 30, 1978, as enclosed. Our department has still received many complaints about the odorous emissions since the issuance of the emission permit to Rolanda. We believe that the facility cannot continuously meet the requirements of the Air Pollution Control Commission's Regulation No. 2. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. Yours truly, Franklin D. Yoder, M.D. FDY:dr cc Commissioner Ed Dunbar, Chr. • Commissioner Jun2 Steinmark Commissioner Norman Carlson Commissioner Victor Jacobucci Commissioner Leonard Roe Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney Gary Fortner, Director of Planning S'K'r f L A'/ / BOARD OF HEALTH IV Y eld/ County Health Department DAVID WERKING, DDS Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH RALPH MB Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM SLICK Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE Greeley DONALD HERGERT, Windsor (303)353 0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS, JR, M D Greeley January 31, 1978 KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY, Ault JOE STOCKTON GIlcrest TO: Weld County Board of Commissioners Commissioner Ed Dunbar, Chr. Commissioner Norman Carlson Commissioner Victor Jacobucci Commissioner Leonard Roe Commissioner June Steinmark FROM: Franklin D. Yoder, M.D. SUBJECT: Odor Violation (30 January 978) Rolanda Feeds Inc. , Hudson Last evening, John Hall, Director of Environmental Health and Ron Stow, Supervisor, Environmental Health recorded an odor violation in excess of 170 dilutions to 1 using our scentometer. The attached notes are written from the field report. This violation was recorded between 8:00 and 9 :00 PM and substantiates the complaints of neighbors who have alleged that recent Rolanda operations have been mostly at night. Our representatives, Mr. Hall & Mr. Stow, were refused entry to the plant area following detection of the violation. This act is in itself illegal. Our staff was also subject to telephone verbal abuse by one of the owners. FDY/hv cc: Gary Fortner, Director of Planning Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney John Hall, Director of Environmental Health Services Enclosure 1. \, I A BOARD OF HEALTH WeldCounty Health .department DAVID WERKING, DDS,Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH RALPH MB Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BLICK, Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE, Greeley DONALD HERGERT, Windsor (303)353-0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ, Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS,JR M D, Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY,Ault JOE STOCKTON,Gi'crest ©61/40 tsmib\cLite..43 — Qo-Lam- 1. 2(• r1t 12:ao P.m l'irtn^ COAJLa," - eci-L1 2 )t. 3 6 -11Z6. k.214•47e t<Y•00 .t..m. Ste 'Qt•;d aA-te• • a do3 S 3 Wt lei Go Rd. 16 S S('-SOW 1-7746 •* ,K. Q40.1-0."-dc, Y 2'.0 S p.VI). Yn12. aces eel- rrR•1-cai.�i- •-7 L(Slo \i 2. ,e.-% t;• i 'P i ov-1- _ 4 S arso iflp.M. �.o-tra�..1�. d U �ww c- es?. b, ..- ., 9 G:oO uLcici CoNoJc1' Roe VA, tog enukdwoy ICetn.s.J4++l. 1 . 2L •Ilk -3-0a1n \- a13 N .y Ft -t Now ilei.d .1 4-- _ 2LESLAS -lw%t SI- k sas ATI, Wc‘,„\11, ti 2.P.M• Z. A \-‘,.karch-. `-.clot•.. ql off. ti-)p c,r�p1a,1t;N1.� AQC•1, 4 ode' - .►i A.M. R•`4S—IvN•v". a,v,A, W 1 rN �ntkr ar'a�; Vkals G3,- \O=lS A• 1M, 3o C)� 'r -\ tR'O- t A Wwi crrck4;n5 e�' hi3‘vi- S" • • (1:2.5 A.'c,'. 1.2o .rl p 14V.IS. A,nAi.cr. £,�v.j\ a,kr sri3, ozyt. sue-` �-0,cS, she L.iCQ.d. Mg 4 1 (2 t.stc) o.,r.lk ‘r%t:gh�f`S 1�i .•sr w1l CD�r}Lr• Sr\ S 7 -4/(7 ar l •cTt . R. Canl�a+• U t-4.,.t 04. 16 41(.3P W�4zd . c{°I ,4�. rtv.t.W...5 - -l-owdq •- -4 o. - k. btt the 21.10 P.v... re\ttr. E.ck-L--M*LER tALLVp pu Que.-WO NILE-Met ' o w,c ,-1.I,otr,6--. S1-e. 'hall u+v-a'1 r► 4rt. IA. Nr1lk!•� l '\Wwrir►j G5‘....,.....:4'or-. n HEALTH OF We County Health Department DAVID BOARDR OF DDS,Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH RALPH MB Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BLICK, Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE, Greeley (303)353-0540 DONALD HERGERT, Windsor ANNETTE M LOPEZ, Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS,JR, M D, Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY,Ault JOE STOCKTON Gilcrest 14 311. 7? ( €W *L( thm -fir Po-Lw dk. U Vick, Gno(e& rm.-y29I O VeChe ibt a12/"%. Sc6 Qr{245-P,1rN OA-0- t ", 1 3 1.-q 3J I ectatftw, 9 3 2--q 24 C 0 r Vora- anackq ?32-.42?2 11 5 W. rM oRGit.t4), eiJECei&cc lA �e 0r�d, �a�er 531,-9t�I l`k w,. 1J. (e..-Lof"c 0 _ TS an-.,4 O kc,ck -lit- 010 vo,4, 't V \CAN �J 1+5oX n0. �3z-yzpL IIo w . rno�c,w - k. �1 m ,+M Strcln t-.3%,-Eler Ss3- nays 1\we 1^ G,etl<1 ‘ ",,,,.,p1wwn•k '- 44errnauh 'g Qulti,DckAntr r112-LI G L I S ''' F, i Zz.1.w+,clk �OSS. Gamtt. e3z-qz.V c3ne (o \' '. "d Lewis 73�-gel-4/ k-' "•y441 (w.t4054.) — dam r q' S� A. M, Qo� d ()jai. L,ad Yrrs: — W tN 4 - u .t.en cd Qa- lama..., rr l- or4rR o. 0 t?A, A. Ir., -,"/ OWeld eld L.ourity Health lth l BOARD DDS TH ea Department DAVID WERKING Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH RALPH AAR Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM RUCK Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE Greeley DONALD HERGERT Windsor (303)353-0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ, Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS JR, M O, Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY, Ault JOE STOCKTON, Gilcrest Telephone Conversation Between John Hall and Lloyd Land January 30, 1978 approx. 2215 Land: Were you and Ron Stow here at the plant tonight? Hall: Yes. Land: Get a pencil and piece of paper. I want you to write down - some things. - Hall: All right, go ahead with what you want to tell me. Land: First of all, the plant wasn' t even running tonight. I have witnesses that will confirm this. Secondly, the wind was not - southeasterly as you reported but was 188° - 192°. I have - a wind-sock and this is how I know. Hall: Well Lloyd, you're entitled to your side of the story, but I happen to believe differently. Land: Those guys at :he plant were steam cleaning. What you were smelling was a pile of burning chicken manure. How dumb can you be? Hall: Sure Lloyd. - Land: You guys left my gate open when you came on my property to make your inspection. I followed your tracks. - Hall: We did not enter your property at the gate you are referring to. We turned around, but never got out of the truck. I have no idea who left your gate open. Land: Why didn't you guys wait around until I could get down there? Hall: Lloyd, we were under no obligation to wait for you to arrive on the scene. Your man refused us entry and that's that. Land: I mean, how (expletive deleted) dumb can-you guys be? You know you and these people down here are out to close me down. (Shaklee et al. ) - Hall: That's not the case, we're lust trying to do our job. A time of name calling and character smears ensued with Land finally hanging up. John G. Hall & ' r if)1f /s Jlbz i'Xd ,.„(reiv ` 0-01 AA04- - 1 / 4 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALT AIR' POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION • CD 0R. r ANALYTICAL/a REPORT OF ON VIOLATION • COMPANY c- 'Wag DATE // !' 3Cl• '7z- -- ADDRESS OF SOURCE 66C CUr'/C/' `C0 /&7. -5—/ iC -C_://YS-L/' j / G1/?'/c/ .'1 , City Street County �J AQCR STACK NAME ' ---1- 'Cn/c",: sd e ligi E , �?.aki - /v/e/1 i- -77/i^1 Li I/�r cA S --- BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION / RELATIVE HUMIDITY % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP,_oF S L WIND SPEED ' n f?4 WIND DIRECTION (From) /� �! PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) ST-CC n' C4t=K 0" /ri /gelid, STACK HEIGHT `.----/ •S 0 Feet OBSERVER:S LOCATION Feet NO of Stack WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction; 2) Sun Position: 3) Observer Position, 0 4) Approximate Location of stack, 5) North Arrow. 01 If more than one stack is located at the plant site 02 cNspecifically identify the stack being read Include remarks. 0 l l� G QSE/2-I VN t [C 1-# /64) 05 h ' '-• 06 �1 VV ,�--...\- 11 ill C 074. •08 v.. \-• 1 �,� 2.0tiJ ' Z'' 09 1 �vx' - 10 • ` 11 42. , ,- �f ..2 '2C '�'/4 "3 ( ' I 13 \" ,< � er , f LI.J nlL _ I 14 / K 15 -(\ (/-'d r �/� 1617 �.` RGicc 1& 11 tam 18 4 'r4` ..t � -_�j 19 20f 21 . _ r 9 22 PI, S Zt~' / l�' / 23 it , , �� i >C 1‘7O. / '--r 24 - ---- 25 26 _ 27 28 0c{Cr — Ai.,, pecf tzgel-- CAICi.,-1.,)'hailaL( 29 )0/(/4�iL Ljj / :IC qr.- OBSERVER: DA i E SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PERSONS PRESENT DURING THE EVALUATION: Name: ✓ D/Li '/ �"I'�J t'� Name. �(�rti-xl S1�/jr�' l f �:Title: � J `-hti C eie A,l/ fk41C7// ilie - /teet .ci1' ��-,u.r,_ k'� ' Title / f / tOCCP D ' / ) Date 0/�,��,r I 147 N-1 L)- Q/ZF_�G L- � � Wy 1 Time , /, �. 7,f'�^' r IP,r ,,. W�'/ l l C Health BOARD OF HEALTH Y 1Y eICY bounty �7lea�tn department DAVID WERKING DDS Greeley FRANKLIN D VODER MD MPH RALPH AAB, Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BLICK Roggen GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE Greeley DONALD HERGERT Windsor (303)353 0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS JR M D Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY Ault 3 0.1 . p JOE STOCKTON Gdcresl 1M YY1 o . W E A-t'N E e. Lapzergitir i.) EANINCDa RA-I,AN OA ¶EST `i"► ' S 'TO (ReQ-AZE • voND Pooczes-c. -C �m�s FoR o4Art Et? 1� �ve1N c N I�HT F WPtE rA41.k.f -- S4- D yIW'tE12 L G 1.D N Q-R 'Q km- QQP Q N gE'r l:N-t\L 2 '- - - \s PEekop ks \IE(2K ?cog_ cbR -Ak.SQEQ.ttw.i. E.rE'Ro%.0‘in- SFkovLO N teGaot1 N`'C\L AT LEAST t (42. sJae‘ E C U. 14-1c9 rn SIA'4 Z VMS kn-ee rtuk.S WOULD SE`R.1N O1 L1riN re. r.3 -04-C ,WCN.D COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTI- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION ANALYTICAL REPORT OF ±#8IBLE-EMIS£&IQN VIOLATION COMPANY A(_.-L a vii)/4 � &-,r - DATE !f' 2C• %1 ADDRESS OF SOURCE ! �6 ) ? LUl e/C I `O / /. 5 / I �'�e//YS 4.�Jj 1 LC�'t'�el/ di / Cits, Street County AOCR STACK NAME .))/c. / 4.'---' Y'd 406 AE4L' BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION I>..ik'.E - Ai/C,/17 /, ////11 l/� U L A'ex) , I ' RELATIVE HUMIDITY % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP,_°F ' L WIND SPEED 'y 6'/77J)1) WIND DIRECTION (From) I' PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) c*Q-j-CCI /11 t_4c-7, r'L col /)/J1) i I STACK HEIGHT •-' S ' Feet OBSERVER:S LOCATION Feet fk L!1 of Stack I WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) i CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction: 2) Sun Position; 3) Observer Position, i. 0 r 4) Approximate Location of stack, 5) North Arrow, 01 If more than one stack is located at the plant site I 02 }specifically identify the stack being reao. Include remarks. 03 (J L; c, '3S u2 G d2 P a (�I a)05 i N.) --,,e.. _t_ 4l1 os 08 09 ,�1 \-- /�,7 �� ,�, , 190• ( . 10 e62:).0 (' — 7C LE 3 I • ( {11 �'�r �.-'' F ,4 Loll/ 3 ' - 1 12 p� ,1, ‘` 13 f L✓ hie 14 • A AA `�/! 15 : n I 16 ,::\) r , C1&I,L(6 11c 18 '0''''' f A ---) 19 U 20 1 21 . -Zi' \ 1 22 'I, S Zi=`I2 /'i ; I c 23 24 �A .' ( •,o d I7O' / ., 25 26 27 �' �+ K 28 Gc�Ct, _ .k✓ry,ecrbCL gel"-C'�i vii`hei/v1tvw 29 + 17 err /4 - r1tLo 1C' elf OBSERVER: �C7),. l J ,DA I h SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PERSONS PRESENT DURING THE EVA.UATION: 7/ Name. ,�� -Cie 4'1c Name ,1[i� l ./L/4(( cif�� / pc)civi d^ Title „. Trileciriu` i tL1! // TitleL / F1 r rf Date 0S0�-1�y�♦ j)/ / �ti L-, /z'/6Z �� G� R. Time' 10/01\171`""- f, S ll, 7,''* r 1,)k/F ,�u � Signature. 4 And 55 16 75-1001 , . • �' s AIR P UTION CONTROL - FIELD INSPECT] WORK SHEET Rey Punch Data: County Source Emission Action Date Agency/ Number Number Point # Type Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 1011101 LLLLI l°Ll°l!i1 121_4'1_21 191911 121411 1°1/111017121 11-1°1 01 1Nl 1 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols. 1-15 from Line 1) 1212.151 L.l Ll 16 18 78 80 (NOTE: Columns not shown must be left blank) ( Do not punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: /2OLANDA FEevS, //VC. SIC: Address: 657/ WELD CO. RD. S1, leEENESAge G County: WELD Person Contacted: PLANT OPEle4Toac Phone: Inspected by: RdNALD e. $7Vc'J f i 'Tarn/ G. 411.1 WELD Cc,H.D. Time: 7:ss- • AMi® A9PSPotvDED t rnioL,q/N`/T Redb1LED QY UHn/ ;Oa : men. t�f� std S: 3 N ArBNDJ odor `..+ar one . gad 239'/3 1=76 Aeeerr s�6 - yy?c eelart ? :� e.n7. l( rMe/( edmr '�'+M �g2.4I11 Y eABaNsT tot o4 2 W B<D fP fit+ 4-Atir '1a.ea. 514.416/'9 '3120VE '2:1owrJ C7y. IQD. 4/. FbUtvp eDex — c1ARAcrea.ts-rtc OF gOLANDA—AT A Polly inrkr, 44cr.) I (melt) tO. eDs. lit 12z AT9:Ss'P/n. PoueJ? A /4 mat/t So u-rn 1 7: I •ItLUTtoN 7b ?NRe:40q) fi-r -rHAT Port rT. ('-r it g'ol,T tr.APPaoe (a mitEr PReii /2o/oit•elo), (1SED QAnNAat-cµewe7' SCVKr)MareR. 4r. /O0 Z — C D/4, APCD . gZecEFne D T0 Hof O✓- FOUND No CDolt IN TVAJM. e/2ocseoeD NE o1J .rr76 C4onrTAPE • 'r- ✓tctiV tTy oc N NVI►7rGRoUS DlT of E(TWEIC loo:/ Olt =I •/ A 120A p Fov D /,v610 co AD. 49 AN) 1 �?G peonrrA6E R-CAd- ;EE ANdtXfte,4L- REPOIt.7—oC o;old P. in. Awn 8:zs P.m. 1"E c/AdtED -rxt£ /tot-AAOA C,t?D S7 '7o CnLo Nwr 62. FAO,Ll7y ( ec 2e&TAa6' AO.E. TV 6.15-1.P CA.R'A. 5/,/• S, on/ W J W• oN Ct,c HWY S2 ?a AuDsof/VO=-76 ; E. oN J-'? 7a alga) O. KD. 491) . WE FOOND No DroE/L CH,4fr4.T&ttrTic o)os..r /n/ cc/L uR.cV17'. Ow LITE : 4.N7EIZED TO PGArer Ail..P/NG — 2 ernPco yE6' "rhig/LC. P`Vene FRon APC-78 (Rev. 7-77-10) PcAZV/dp•FIL coie/C TO THE Nev. IJI)I2NEQ oPeRATiN6 . No(tE Level- ye/2y /4 tG H. Er/pto'ieE1 AFfvrED v1'E , ntsti c / Ta toot Ar /Nrtgil inifnTArion/ rrAte& ,4 / wswECTto$ REP" 'e) y0 Fc.N ,4NALYTtCQt REPotz7 J ovoQ .� • c-�,r,,n. Aemu►-s,l I ...►-r-r l Ro /Q.a.tq I • 3O• ? 8 i4nr.1.(rd c€ /-F:e« . T#i s . c.vo^krJee-1-, Op (./f. Wier., `/ o/ 771 'ANaa74r mow/ e o r+ ww+o( /,4 VA l a sr. -kern do o/' 1 eJ ( . • w.eciluA, r . ACTION TYPE - DESCRIPTIO1' COMPLIANCE STATUS CODES 12 - Inspection 0 - Unknown 22 - Source Test 1 - Not in Compliance 23 - Opacity Observation 2 - In Compliance by Source Test 24 - Odor Observation 3 - In Compliance by Inspection 4 - In Compliance by Certification 5 - In Compliance with Increments of Progress 6 - Not in Compliance with Increments of Progress 7 - Unknown Compliance with Increments of Progress 8 - No Applicable State Regulation 9 - In compliance -- Closed Down /J /l ROAM) cut II(AI III (l L. ()way I l('(,ll/l )('/)(7,'r„1('- I IIAI,hI IN I, '( I I MI, 1!I II �Illr r If, I'11, III,'I t, I 'AO IIAI I'll rr,11r 1 rr• r V/I I IAV•1 III II h II..I i'n I,\ )O 1)111,I I II r'IAI 11 In n,,1 111 l^,Iml (111 II I 1 ANJ'JI 111 1•t I(11'II (,I,.(.I.y III Il'd'IIr L 1911 I P'. ll MD December 5, 1977 1;IrL11,y V Ai11111N '.II A111 (((II�.iV A,,II P,1 ',Tort/loll f}dr ford • r 1 .• � : r _ I l 1 • TO: Commissioner June Steinmark, Chr. Commissioner Norman Carlson , • Commissioner Ed Dunbar Commissioner Victor Jacobucci Commissioner Leonard Roe FROM: Franklin D. Yoder, M.D. / SUBJECT: Rolanda Feeds Inc. Emission Permit ( ith conditions) by Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division Attached you will fird the Emission Permit issued to Rolanda Feeds Inc. as of November 30. P state decision was scheduled for November following the stack tests required under state permit procedure. Ten conditions are attached which will be monitored by the Colorado Department of Health staff and/or our staff. We believe the observance of these conditions will require a stricter operation and members of our staff and/or state staff will be able to determine whether they are complying with the conditions . It is interesting to note that under condition No. 7A where they had been using this compound (commercially known as Ozine) they were able to pass the odor test on the same day their stack tests were conducted. Our previous test indicating the violation of the odor regulation of the APCC No. 2 was probably at a time when they were not using chemically treated scrubber feed water. If the Commissioners desire, members of our staff would be pleased to answer any questions and explain the impact of the ten requirements. Is it possible for the Planning Commission and/or County Commissioners to attach these or similar conditions to a zoning permit? FDY/hv Encl . • cc : lGary Fortner, Director of Planning Kaye Norton, Assistant County Attorney John Hall , Director of Environmental Health Services Ron Stow, Supervisor Environmental Health Specialist-Air Pollution Control r ' 6 WeldBOARD OF HEALTH iV el/ / County Health Department DAVID WERKING DDS, Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER MD, MPH RALPH MB Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BUCK Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • GDORIS DEFFKE Greeley DONALD HERGERT Windsor (303)353 0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS JR M D Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY Ault JOE STOCKTON Glcrest November 16, 1977 3:45 p.m. John Clouse received complaint from Margaret Eichthaler. 3:50 p.m. John Clouse called Ronald K. Stow, Weld County Health Department and asked that we check it out. 4:00 p.m. Harry Collier and Ron Stow, WCHD left to Mrs. Eichthaler's 4:35 p.m. At I-76 and Kersey Road, we observed that Ro-Landa had just begun operating, had been shut off. Wind out of approx. ENE. 4:45 p.m. At Mrs. Eichthaler's. She stated that when she got home at 3:45 her house stunk from the odor from Ro-Landa. Harry and Ron talked with her for approx. 15 minutes. Wind appeared to be ENE or E. 5:00 p.m. lie drove through Hudson, found no odors there. 5: 12 p.m. On Frontage Road along I-76 at a point 0.8 miles from the Kersey Road junction. We found a 31 :1 D/T chicken manure odors using the Darneby-Cheney Scentometer #05212, an odor characteristic of the Ro-Landa operation. We then drove into Keenesburg. 5:35 p.m. Returned to the exact spot as the previous reading, could not detect an odor. The wind appeared to have shifted to a more NE direction. Drove underneath railroad tracks to County Road 49, and proceeded south. 5:46 p.m. Found 170:1 D/T at 5:45 at first bend in County Road 49 going south. Odor was chicken manure being dried, slight burning smell to manure. Wind was out of ENE appox. 15 mph. Odor plume appox. 75 ft. wide. Temperature, Cold (300). Then proceeded to Colorado Hwy. 52, East to County Road 51 North along 51 . Proceeded N. to County Road 16, then West alone 16 to Road 49. Road 49 South to point of odor. Found no other odors along this circuit. 6:06 p.m. Returned to first bend in County Road 49. Again, found odors of 170:1 D/T. Same odor as before. 1 Page 2 Ro-Landa Observati,11 6:15 p.m. Drove up to plant from County Road 51 . Found a driver walking out and he signed my odorous emission test results. His name was Bryan Benton. appox. 8:00 p.m. Les Stolte called Harry Collier. Lloyd Land also called Harry. Stolte suggested that we had not actually smelled Ro-Landa and asked that we return this evening. Land also asked Harry to return that evening. Then Land became very abusive, calling Harry a lying SOB (used words) . Harry hung up on him. November 17, 1977 5:30 p.m. Lloyd Land called Ron Stow, wanted to meet with Ron at 8:00 - 8:30 that day, Ron said no, 10:00 - 10:30. 9:00 p.m. Lloyd Land called Ron to verify meeting at 10:15 - 10:30 10:35 p.m. Ron Stow and Ton Smith, Weld County Health Dept. , visited Ro-Landa. Present: Les Stolte and Lloyd Land. Stolte and Land vehemently denied that Ro-Landa was in violation. They said: 1 . Wind was 90°, therefore Ron couldn't have gotten them. 2. Grazing sheep were between Ror and the plant. 3. L. Land also spreading cow and chicken manure on his fields. In the course of the discussion, Lloyd Land also called Ron Stow a lying SOB (used words) and said that he'd better straighten out. Both Stolte and Land were very excited and yelling, saying that it was a put-up job and harrassment or a mistake and that L. Land was the one making the odors on his land. They then showed Stow and Smith where the sheep were grazing and where the manure was being spread. The manure spread on the fields did not smell the same as the odor found the previous night. Odors from the previous night were detected when the plume for dehydrating swung around to our direction. Wind was from a ESE/ENE direction. Mr. Stolte wanted Stow to tear up the odor readings and not tell the State. He stated that he had already called his attorney, Zarlenao, a judge in Wheatridge. He said Zarlenao had already talked with a Greeley judge about this matter. ,y�, -- 1 Sk COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAL • AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION IDO ANALYTICAL REPORT OF V-I-StBt-EEMIsSION VIOLATION COMPANY R v - L LNG`R wee as DATE << ' 1('77 ADDRESS OF SOURCE 62 5oGt W-eId- 63 IcI 5 s1. ti w-dd 63 — (a(AJytQQ, City Street County AQCR 4S)c STACK NAME -TG . - v _N-I-UR-\ ScQoRl3EQ. STAck BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION IU lco NT RELATIVE HUMIDITY % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP,_oF WIND SPEED " I S - Ro m`DV, WIND DIRECTION (From) N E PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) 1 14) STACK HEIGHT r\- -ae Feet OBSERVERS LOCATION ( Y Feet S of Stack WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction; 2) Sun Position: 3) Observer Position, 0 4) Approximate Location of stack, 5) North Arrow. 01 If more than one stack is located at the plant site 02 specifically identify the stack being read. Include remarks 03 04 05 06 - ?---) l • 07 ).,,,W t—,1. cyvx _ C 08 �12d.4f 09 c VII 10 11 6 12 0 13 CIOQ :! , /T14 15 \ I-1 / 16 MAi'V17 18 C/3� U€4 ) 19 20 / 21 `."r. --_---- 22 9 , 7► F 24 -� 25 _- —� I ` ,/�d'7Q rf 26 l�C .C,42/?, -- 27 x'. \ O P o1‹. 28 y\ A- 29 Y i'l OBSERVER. ear DATE SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PERSONS PRESENT DURING T E EVALUATION: , /^//1/�7 //��'�� lJ �[ /� Name Q/ ��[a� Name KfIlGll C�CJ� /(� G✓C4 �e r v ( vY /' —� _ Title �df' ' r` Title �—c 'r--��, Date gr wr ig6 Time / Signature 6./CA--/—egA BOARD OF HEALTH vv de/ County L 1'ealtii lJepartmerit DAVID WERKING DDS Greelry f RANKI IN D YODI R MD MPH RAI PH AAR Grerlry D.rerlor I IS Ilt I,^,PIIAI ROAD Will IAM RLICK, Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE Grerlry DONALD HERGERT Wrndcor (103)3510540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ. Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS JR M D. Grrriny November 9, 1 977 KATHLEEN SIIAUGHNESSY. Ault JOE STOCKTON. Grlcresl William Auberle, Director Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Dear Mr. Auberle: We, as well as the Weld County Commissioners , are concerned about the Rolanda Feeds Inc. , located south of I-76 between Hudson and Keenesburg. We are concerned that, according to our information, the engineers in that section are not addressing the odor problem in their emission permit procedure. Stack tests are scheduled for this month. Our staff recently met with the County Commissioners and members of the County Planning Commission staff and there is a great concern whether a special use permit will be issued by the County. In the meantime, complaints are legion from surrounding rural and even urban areas and they relate to the odor problem. The purpose of this letter is to ask that the odor problem be addressed in the permit procedure and that we be consulted before any decision is made about issuing such permit. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Franklin D,/Yoder, M.D. FDY/hv cc: John Hall , Director of Environmental Health ) Ron Stow, Supervisor, Environmental Health Specialist J WeldCounty Health Department BOARD OF HEALTH DAVID WERKING,DDS,GREELEY FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD RALPH AAB,GREELEY DIRECTOR GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 CATHERINE BENSON,AULT WILLIAM BUCK,ROGGEN (303) 353-0540 DORIS DEFFKE,GREELEY '7 DONALD HERGERT,GREELEY June 16, 197/ HERSCHEL PHELPS,JR,MD. GREELEY CLARENCE SITZMAN,GREELEY JOE STOCKTON,GILCREST h13\1181920 Mr. Gary Fortner, Director a'� ' : Weld County Planning Commission JUj111977 J, Centennial Center 915-10th Street o weid � Ep v� Greeley, CO 80631 ' q�Aein tr b ,01 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We recommend disapproval of the special use permit for the dehydration facility of Rolanda Feeds, 6509 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg, Colorado, located in the East 2, Section 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West, Weld County, Colorado. They are not meeting the state emission standards for odors and particu- lates. Sincerely, Glen E. Paul , irecto� Environmental Health Services GEP:sjg )k) C FE-4-L--S -- _Q=L___ Welch County Health Department BOARD HEALTH DAVID WERKING DDS,GREELEY FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD RALPH AAB GREELEY DIRECTOR GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 CATHERINE BENSON,AULT WILLIAM BUCK ROGGEN (303) 353 0540 DORIS DEFFKE GREELEY DONALD HERGERT GREELEY HERSCHEL PHELPS,JR,M D GREELEY CLARENCE SITZMAN GREELEY May 6, 1977 JOE STOCKTON,GILCREST Mr. Stanley L. Stolte Ro-Landa Feeds, Inc. 6509 Weld County Rd. 51 Keenesburg, CO 80643 Dear Sir: The Rolanda Feeds , Inc. chicken manure dehydrating facility, located at 6509 Weld County Road 41 , is required to meet two Air Pollution Control Commission Regulations with regard to plant emissions. I have enclosed copies of these applicable regulations. Regulation No. 1 , deals with the 20% visible emission limitation and Regulation No. 2, with odors. Also, the facility has two air pollution emission permits. The first, No. C-11 ,169 issued August 10, 1976, is for the Beard direct-fired rotary drier with cyclone control device. Final approval has not been made for this drier because of dust emissions from unenclosed portions of the drier and hammermill . The Beard drier is to be taken down when the new Economy drier becomes operational . The second permit No. C-11 ,328 issued March 25, 1977, is for the Economy single-pass drier with cyclone control device. Within 180 days of drier start-up, Rolanda is required to perform stack testing from the Economy drier. Neither drier has any odor control devices. Cyclones are installed to remove particulate matter from the airstream. However, in odor emission testing done by the Weld County Health Department, no odors in excess of 7:1 dilution to threshold have been found on those dates indicated on the attached 1977 enforcement activities listing. Also, to minimize odor emissions, Mr. Stolte assured me that the present manure stockpiles will be eliminated and that once the Economy drier becomes functional , manure trucked onto the plant site will be immediately processed. The road into the facility and the area around the plant itself is to be paved and this will help to reduce fugitive dust emissions from manure hauler traffic. If you have any questions , please contact our office immediately. Yours truly, hn G. Hall , Acting Director Ronald K. S w, R.P.S. Environmental Health Services Air Pollution Control RKS:dr cc Gary Fortner, Tom Hahn /� EVISED: March 1, 1976 j.. L ; REGULATION NO. 1 I'I Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides I� for the State of Colorado I; I. SMOKE EMISSIONS AND OPACITY REGULATIONS: Section I.A amended December 9, 1971, effective February 1, 1972. I I it A. Stationary Air Contamination Sources: 1. No person shall emit or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere, from any air contamination source of emission whatsoever, any air contaminant which is of such a shade or density as to obscure an observer's vision to a degree I , in excess of 20% opacity. Instrumentation which results in equivalent readings may be used in specific installations if approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Division. Subsection 2.a. amended September 4, 1975, effective December 17, 1975. 2. Exceptions: a. No person shall emit or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere from any alfalfa dehydration plant or process unit associated therewith, any air contaminant which is of such a shade or density so as to obscure an observer's vision to a degree in excess of 40% opacity. This emission standard for alfalfa dehydration plants shall be in effect until January 1, 1985 for all existing alfalfa dehydration plants as defined in Section II.B of Regulation No. 5; thereafter, the 20% opacity limitation provided in Section I.A of Regulation No. 1 shall apply to emissions from alfalfa dehydration plants. New alfalfa dehydration plants, as defined in Section II.C of Regulation No. 5, shall not be subject to the provisions of Regulation No. 5, but must comply with Section I.A of Regulation No. 1. b. No person shall emit or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere from any pilot plant and experimental operation any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes which is of such a shade or density as to obscure an observer's vision to a degree in excess of 40% opacity. This emission standard for pilot plants and experimental operations shall be in effect for a period not to exceed 180 operating days, cumulative total, from the date such operations commence; thereafter, the 20% opacity limitation provided in Part I Section A of these regulations shall apply to emissions from pilot plants and experimental operations. 1.1 COLORADO DEPARTMENT HEALTH Air Pollution Control Commission 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Adopted : March 11, 1971 Effective Date: April 23, 1971 REGULATION 2 ODOR EMISSION REGULATIONS Pursuant to Section 66-31-8(2) (e) of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act of 1970, the following Emission Regulations are issued: A. No person, wherever located, shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air contaminants from any single source such as to result in detectable odors which are measured in excess of the following limits: I (1) For areas used predominantly for residential or commercial purposej]it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes .' of odor free air. (2) In all other land use areas, it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with fifteen (15) or more volumes of odor free air. (3) (a) When the scurce is a manufacturing process or agricultural operation, no violation of Subsections (1) and (2) shall be cited by the Division, provided that the best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous gases/ and, where applicable, provided there is compliance with stem 4r of the Colorado Depart- ment of Health Pasteurized Fluid Milk and Milk Products Regulation adopted 18 April 1967. In determining the best practical control methods, the Division shall not require any method which would result in an arbitrary and unreasonable taking of property or in the practical closing of any lawful business or activity, if such would be without corresponding public benefit. (b) For all areas it is a violation when odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with one hundred twenty-seven (127) or more volumes of odor free air in which case provisions of Paragraph A(3) (a) shall not be applicable. 2.1 BOARD OF EDUCATION RAYMOND YEAGER, V. PRES. MARVIN HELZER, PRES. JAMES BRNAK, SEC'Y IVAN OSTER, TREAS. WAYNE N DUNKER, ASST. SEC'Y Weld County School District Re-3(J) BOB C. GUDKA, SUPT. DALE L. RECKARD, ASST. SUPT. KEENESBURG, COLORADO 80643 `"01:‘ � 6s j/,�� •�'za < fl �� % "f, February 2 , 1978 Y ` ` o J Weld County Planning Commission Court House-915 10th St. Greeley, Co . 80631 This letter is in reference to the Roland Feeds , Inc . which is located between Keenesburg and Hudson Colorado . The only compliant that the School District has of the operation is the odor that it produces . The odor can be detected, depending upon the direction of the wind, at any one of our building sites . The three closest sites are Keenesburg Elementary, Weld Central High School and Hudson Elementary, this is where the problem is the most prevalent. If I can be of further service in this problem, please contact me . Sincerely, Bob C . Gudka Superintendent BG/de Town of Hudson BOX 351 HUDSON. COLO. 80642 April 25, 1978 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Sirs: At the regularly scheduled Town meeting of April 12, 1978, the Hudson Town Council moved, by a majority, to support the action against the special land use permit being requested by Rolanda Feed. The Town of Hudson, represented by it's duly elected Mayor, do hereby request to be present at the April 25, 1978, hearing in Greeley, Colorado, concerning this land use permit. R spec Sul , - Dudley McGill Mayor of Hudson DM/lmr • , 1 ! Town of Keenesburg INCORPORATED JULY, 1919 ZIP CODE 80643 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO April 24, 1978 Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Sirs: In response to public opposition to the operations of Rolanda Feeds Incorporated the Board of Trustees of the Town of Keenesburg respectfully requests that the Weld County Board of Commissioners decline the request of Rolanda Feeds Incorporated for a Special Use Permit. While attempts to eliminate the odor eminating from the plant have been made, it is our feeling that until such time as the odor can be eliminated no permit should be issued. Respectfully, THE TOWN BOARD OF KEENESBURG Mayor Trustee r a Truste c. _ __'� w,�,,.r4 11 r� / Trustee c zi'.t 4.,,,c.t�-/ Trustee `26 --,-2( 0,,,,,,..._...- Truste - K-- . -- .a Town Board/vg Town of Keenesburg INCORPORATED JULY, 1919 ZIP CODE 80843 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO January 11, 1978 County Commissioners, Weld County Planning Commission, Weld County TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: Special Use Permit for Rolanda Feeds Inc. Gentlemen: Consider this a letter of disapproval for a Special Use Permit to Rolanda Feeds Inc. There have been numerous complaints from concerned citizens regarding the obnoxious odor produced from this operation, also what effect the raw material will have on fly infestation in the summer months. We have been advised that scrubbers have been installed to eliminate the odor, but thus far there has not been any noticible improvement. The Town of Keenesburg is already bordered by a chicken farm, dairy farms, and a hog operation, and we feel one more operation of this nature will certainly not enhance our chances for future growth. Air polluticn being a major issue everywhere, should be given top priority in making your decision. We are not anti-free-enterprise, but feel the health and welfare of the people should be our major concern. Therefore- we implore your careful consideration in approving this Special Use Permit. Sincerely, TOWN OF KEENESBURG &,--e I/ Hugh4enton, Mayor HD/vlg ^ ccs Leonard Roe, Commissioner Ken McWilliams, Planning Commission i I iii i:id,i Iii; wuU Co 'Y0III lll I "k"Erovz f"/ e 6 ?Aim PR. v4c.►� a= rim; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111 Anthony Robbins, M D., M.P.A. Executive Director December 27, 1977 Anthony V. Zarlengo, P.C. Attorney At Law 220 Manpower Building 1554 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Sir: The Division has re-evaluated Condition 9 of Permit No. C-11 , 328 which states : "That a sample of the scrubber feedwater be taken at least once per week and analyzed for its chemical constituents. A report of such aralyses shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division on a monthly basis. " . . . . and will make the following changes: Condition No. 9: "Rolanda Feeds shall submit to the Division copies of their logs showing dates , time, quantity of scrubber water addi- tives used and the name of the individual responsible for formulating the mix. Copies of all purchase orders and in- voices for each chemical used in the scrubber water shall be furnished to the Division. These reports and submissions shall be provided to the Division each month and certified authentic by a company official . " Kindly indicate your concurrence of this change, so that an amended permit can be issued. Very truly yours , .W.M. Auberle Director Air Pollution Control Division JP:plc . M► . l F coo .';,1' ® ', Fr c,, t�s COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TF1 AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111 Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Director Ref: APSS February 7, 1978 CERTIFIED MAIL NO. 992017 Mr. Stanley L. Stolte Registered Agent of Service of Process for Rolanda Feeds , Inc. P.O. Box 797 502 Weld County Road 31 Brighton, Colorado 80601 RE: Revocation of Emission Permit No. C-11 ,328 Dear Mr. Stolte: Your attention is directed to Article 7 of Title 25 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act of 1970, C.R.S. 1973, and, specifically, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission's Regulation No. 2. , Section A. (3) (b) , which reads as follows : "For all areas it is a violation when odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with one hundred twenty-seven (127) or more volumes of odor free air in which case provisions of Paragraph A. (3)(a) shall not be applicable." Your attention is further directed to Emission Permit No. C-11 ,328, which was issued to Rolanda Feeds, Inc. , and, specifically, condition Number 2, which reads as follows : "That the emission of odorous air contaminants does not exceed that allowed by Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2." Odor observations were nade on the emissions from your dried poultry waste pro- cessing facility, located at 6509 Weld County Road 51 , near Keenesburg, Weld County, Colorado, by Mr. Ron Stow, a duly delegated and certified odor observer of the Weld County Health Department, on January 30, 1978. Mr. Stow was accom- panied by Mr. John Hall , Director of Environmental Health , Weld County Health Department. On said date, odorous emissions from your facility were observed to be in excess of 127:1 ; dilutions were observed as follows : Inspection Point Observation Time Dilution Reading 1 8:10 p.m. 170:1 2 8:32 p.m. 170:1 5 8:43 p.m. 170:1 6 8:50 p.m. 170:1 (See attached work sheets for point location. ) 4 . Mr. Stanley L. Stolt( February 7, 1978 Page Two The plant operator was contacted, but refused to admit inspectors for formal inspection and declined to sign for or accept a copy of the Analytical Report. A copy of the Analytical Report was then attached to the front door of Rolanda's office by the inspectors . Pursuant to the above information, and as provided by Section 25-7-113(4) (d) , C.R.S. 1973, and, specifically, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission ' s Regulation No. 3, Section H.3.a. (ii ) , this letter will serve as notice of the Division' s REVOCATION of Emission Permit No. C-11 ,328. In accordance with Regulation No. 3, Section H.3.a. and b. , you are hereby notified that the revocation of Emission Permit No. C-11 ,328 shall become final ten ( 10) days after receipt of this letter. Additionally, you may submit in writing to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission a request for a con- ference or a hearing before the Commission, within twenty (20) days after this revocation becomes final , in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-7-116, C. R.S. 1973. You also have the right to reapply for an Emission Permit. ]his application must include , however, whatever measures are necessary to bring the emissions in compliance with applicable standards. Dated this 7 day of February, 1978. Sincerely, Are William M. Auberle, Director Air Pollution Control Division RF:dg Enclosures cc: Weld County Health Department Weld County Commiss-oners w • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAL... AIR' POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION • ; ANALYTICAL REPORT 0) tt'&-Ii .I IeN VIOLATION • 1., COMPANY 7'(✓-L e::,/,/1)4 rG G S �7 DATE ' ,Z__.___?0..1.7...f • 'ADDRESS OF SOURCE G'!J (4/tic ( ' •r / • rr L;,( , C ty street County AQCR • ' STACK NAME ✓ /` / ./1-'- dec-�/-E,I' BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION 7-2)'-1ki — A,/C.T- r7//N 0 ti- P cd S,j RELATIVE HUMIDITY 56 PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP. oF WIND SPEED .. / �� /) S L WIND DIRECTION (From) PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.i SV-t CT/11 c/C3 1,,(-- l ji y)/ l1/)i, v STACK HEIGHT •"" • Li Feet OBSERVERS LOCATION Feet /1'r0 of Stack WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction: 2) Sun Position, 3) Observer Position, 0 01 4) Approximate Location of stack, 5) North Arrow, 02 If more than one stack is located at the plant site }- specifically identify the stack being read. Include remarks. 03 r • - o� , I -1-1C.' Cl &SCI2L'�IZ P°3/ ��I Qt, 06 IV i • 074- - t, `t � t� 1C- 08 , , �` Z - 1r\ \r7C'• 09 I /,�" �4 11 ` 12 � ' ��- t "� 2L �� s I • 1 1413 `, LlZ fL• l. f 11- I . 16 J - 131 -1//__- • 17 �Gjt(A1L�� U 18 1 19 ). , '' ^( L L 20 I 21 22 , I 23 � , G(,�-1 /7l / 1 24 25 _ -........,-C._; 26 27 28 29 (��cic�` — .1: 29 I%f'1 C[ /'/Ci- n31cL� tia u: t OBSERVER L- . AO /1/fj t4 14) / ,1C' /� DATE SIGNATURES: Duplicate of t'1 Analytical Report Give„To PEf.<^+4S PRESENT DURING THE EVALUATION: ) Name '7-DA/ I') f/r�/ Name % /"} O. r / Title I)//fit c-ce, LA'1/- f�<--4 7/ Title ,1/�C, /L`�C/ 11l Yi, k�/ �.1'i� / } i lc' c L�C7) cam) t1-1� Date / �.- / jIt ! . Tim- AIR POL :ON CONTROL - E :ELD INSPECTION 2K SHEET Key Punch Data: County Source Action Date Agency/ Number Number Point 11 Type Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 12.12:12i i2 LL1 Ol l 0,01 cl 7l l Ll2 l 191911 1214/1 1°1 /1-31°1741 11-16101 l l 1 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 5i 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols. 1-15 from Line 1) 101001 L�t lCl 16 18' 78 80 (NOTE: Coluuns not shown must be left blank) ( Do not punch Line 2 if colum 78 is blank) Company: PO LAAIDA FEE-7)3, /rt/C. SIC: Address: 657/ (HELD co. eel). 5/ , G County: WEL.0 Person Contacted: PLANT OPEl 4T3g. Phone : Inspected by: /COWACD l(_ ST0c4) f JOHN O. +IALL.r WELD CP H D. Time: '7:SS 'AMXES) 1E FIC-bV E, 77) 60mPL,41 ,Pr7T f,EC&1VD dy c7bHN HALL r/ ivO r 4 ranl Ds aid . 5:45- !? i V/q odor '-'" ve''S. ad 239'/3 j76 Accers s-a - ?c ,�,lana/a 7 :o� P' m �o�o-TT+ y 1',�akcl-ItYr �d srwc!( mdo� q2.441W BSA CPRd.41 a.* +ieir P1ac' 576 .''(,n 2N2ovE '$Dwry Cry. ter). 14/. FduNP o'Do4 — CNA0.ACTER.ISTpc of gotANDA—A-r A POINT- /,,// //[r rn�er•u,c4tn, (A)6a) to. t2Ds. 4f! 12z, . AT 7:5-6-P.M. rout" A T �1 i�2 �o�cT�1 7: ( �lcvrlorr "7a �{aes�oa-D Ar -MAT' Pairrr', (-11-1/Cr,orNT tr. gPPR !r �r�Es Gb2o,Y► 12o/csn..1n) USED RprbvAar C/ A'e7' SC�'r41-rea /O0Z — coo/4, AP N . e2ncC,Fo6 D TD Nv.Dr oi— a.ro oDoit /n/ To d'. ,/2eC6eaeD NE 0,4 3 74 C4l..mN°TAc. ' / ErTWEt 10:I dt, It :/ AT- vIcINITy oP QOA® Fpv�D AUh1cGR.oLIS 7,/r- T of '1 C;vla1,0 to fib. 419 APO j '7(. PrzeirrAGE /20A0 - 3EE A J41}(TIC1 -1 ' oP oAOl� P. m. A Na B :Za P.rn. GJE cl Ile 1-5'D -rriaE /LacA AlDA c4D �i -ra r.�ao 0�y 6'2,- FACILITy ( 72 'TAcE AD. E: 7a GEL� C,0-ieP. 6'/.)• N. ON CJ . W, OA/ CAD Lo f.IWY 5'Z Te FdUDSor17-OZ-ql. j E, oN T?07bWt� u'• FLD, 4'0 , we- r_o rvo 607-1-1E12 C NA .4c-TLrG rrTr t o)o,CS rnr out clieoarr. OA/ r g : tW FRED 7 p "YAivr ea/Lit)fi V G — 2 'rfPLo veer Tff�,QG, / LurnE ,om AFC-75 (Rev. 7-77-10) rcgc-1/34E/C. GorNC 7n THE NW. Ugiv Ge OPed24Trad °V®trE I-01,c' /!IGH. Err7PLo'CeE-f REFvr5A CITE PE/2M/Sri oaV 77, cook" .T- /IV rTraimcIrrArionl OP ',I/KE- A-A1 trvSP.ECTRO.✓ To VC3N IA gillelre,Gy7TC4G (f- ?7 6,L/t IA ens - • o � �t �N a(r� Ca./ &p o r f�- „N 4,4( .3.4y,ctf AL 40 ��l(.9 tars -Ayr door yy- / w f�J • ACTION TZPE - DESCRIPTION COMPLIANCE STATUS CODES 12 - Inspection 0 - Unknown 22 - Source Test 1 - Not in Compliance 23 - Opacity Observation 2 - In Compliance by Source Test 24 - Odor Observation 3 - In Compliance by Inspection 4 - In Compliance by Certification 5 - In Compll ante with Increments of Progress 6 - Not in Compliance with Increin nts of Progress 7 - Unknown Compliance with Increments of Prrc:es,1 • 9 Y a.PQ • • • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION 4210 E. 110. An©., Dwyer, E0220 ISSUED TO ROLANDA FEEDS, INC. THE AIR CONTAMINATION SOURCE FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: New DPW Processing Facility located at 6509 Weld County Road 51, Keenesburg, Colorado THE EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT INCLUDES: 10 x 42 Economy Drier Cyclone Dust Collector Venturi Scrubber and Associated Cyclonic Mist Eliminator THIS PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE SIDE AND IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 1. That the emission rate of particulate matter does not exceed 23.0 lbs/hr0 and is not greater than 20% opacity; 2. That the emission of odorous air contaminants does not exceed that allowed by Air Pollution Control Commission Regulation No. 2; . 3. That the feedwater rate to the venturi, scrubber be maintained not less than 25 gal/min. ; 4. That the scrubber be operated at a pressure differential, measured across the venturi and associated mist eliminator, of at least 6.6 inches of water; 5. That the direct-fired rotary drier be operated between 200-275° F. at all times; 6. That the direct-fired rotary drier be operated with a raw material input not greater than 20 TPI'I; 7. That the scrubber feedwater be chemically treated prior to injection, into the scrubber to control emissions. This treatment shall consist of the following constituents at the following minimum concentrations: (a) Emulsifiable Orthodichlorobenzene at 0.125%; (b) H2SO4 at 0.0063%; (c) Wex at 0.0063%. (Continued) .✓ - w.s■ w..., w Emission Permit issued to Rolaudu Feeds, Inc. Page 2 8. That a new batch of chemically treated feedwater be made when 75% of the previous batch has been expended. The above chemicals shall be added to the feedwater tank prior to the addition of any water. A log shall be maintained of when each batch of feedwater is prepared and the quantities of chemicals added. These logs shall be avaf_l,ale for inspection upon request. 9. That a sample of the scrubber feedwater be taken at least once per week and analyzed for its chemical constituents. A report of such analyses shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division on a monthly basis. 10. The Division reserves the right to take whatever samples it deems necessary to assure compliance with the conditions of this permit. THIS PERMIT MUST BE RETAINED AND MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION UPON REQUEST, AT THE LOCATION SET FORTH HEREIN, AND THE EQUIPMENT IDENTIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE MARKED WITH THE PERMIT NUMBER IN A VISIBLE MANNER. THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION. PERMIT NO. C-11,328 DATE ISSUED: November 30, 1977 - FINAL APPROVAL - By J . Director J �► 4 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Ii AIR'POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION . ANALYTICAL REPORT OF VISIBLE EMISSION Vi&L-ATION. COMPANY aa) /« l4 CA f-e ri 1,,A1,- .f 1r, f • DATE 1/-241 7 7 ff, ADDRESS OF SOURCE ,A1,- #,.t ! h •e l,-;,` l i City Street County AQCR STACK NAME ... t'I ,A G• e- S kf. :4 f K BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION I•c'r f I •,_ "i r•`'' -1 RELATIVE HUMIDITY % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP, 41-NF �f rP •7 �� . WIND DIRECTION(From) ' "" WIND, EED ,1 - , inp PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) STACK HEIGHT /I 3. Feet OBSERVER:S LOCATION 2,', '' Feet L ' tc"of Stack WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) ,'i Y I r: CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction; 2) Sun Position; 3) Observer Position, 1 t ( f 0 -, 4) Approximate Location of stack; 5) North Arrow. '4 1,-Pi 01 .'3 If more than one stack is located at the plant site 02 a; ,` specifically identify the stack being read. Include remarks. ' 03 i1 1' 'S ,' 04 r 6 05 G- 0 1.' :It: 1 OS �' a 1' '.' `,, 1 a ,1.. • J �t 08 '3 r 1!� y "\,. .t . " 4 1 v f7 F" r` , �1',. . �c.tyIr , p 11 y %_' a 12 ) 9 13 t . ' I 14 1,atf 'i I. — — 15 ' T 16 17 98 f 19 - 20 t 21 . 22 23 h -. , . • 24 25 .- 26 t 27 23 t OBEERVER: DAY@ SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PERSONS PRESENT DURING THE EVALUATION: Name. Name: , ';'I 'f c C f; n�3M f a w Title. +,t' 1 ,, . Title: '17147. e-e (s' 'l l'' Date Time: Signature. Qcr.ci 1R-7qi-1001 - • • . a COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - AIR'POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION • , - ANALYTICAL REPORT OF VISIBLE EMISSION '.ZN - COMPANY /s ' 7 ��jy Ir e DATE �'J'y Pl o'f ? �{- .Y'�� 1 . Y r + l ADDRrE:3OFSOURCE 6., 6--/-) , (4)C ; 1 / X ;,,,A,.t..� 114"J,, ' City Street county AQCR STS?CiaNAME--$r -) t c,.:-' '5--,t-,e ,i ,ki BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION RELATIVE HUMIDITY % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP.!.?-10F . A !JIND St'EED /j ' /re 4J . WIND DIRECTION(From) ,5u-4 22- PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) ' 4,)a, :1\-, i r. _ ,. ':.-. -. ' II ". STACK HEIGHT Feat OBSERVERS LOCATION I.', Feat ii=r,- _I of Stack Pia': 'LUMIE or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) '/ e9 , ti- r,_C.y 1 y_re- err,. ti Y 1 -,/,,- CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction; 2) Sun Position; 3) Observer Position; ' ;' .-',, L 4) Approximate Location of stack, 5) North Arrow. . If more than one stack is located at the plant site r l.,.',� .v-,1 01 � c� r1" ' if ;,, ,sue 02 .T. ter- ;L specifically identify the stack being read. Include remarks. l f .r.,`rn-., 04 ;;, a;_ ,;'7- ;2. e 1-.-; 05 .Z. ,7 08'' :::,:`,t`t ,.,ri. 07 d'G1 .e_ a Y�.. / . J �� r;-9 03 ..._ _i' tg- 09 11 12 '� p13 14 ) �j` k �•�'`,' tl . 15 1( 7,-) / \ .."-ff 16 1 ,r . 17 18 19 ,/,"'"r.1 ( -) 20 21 ; A J ' 22 5 23 24 25 26 27 / 28 ,' 29: %,- _ -,,_ ..-a._+. , '' �-,:e.,-,- '.i1,._ "' J-,!• .,f_--_y.' ,.., . OBCERVER: DATE SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PF,Pit=l IS P0RkESE1k DURING THE EVALUATION: e_. - r:- m_,--' -ti-- _ —.., " Name: Name: . / Title. Title: ✓ ' • Date: Time' Signature. AF=C-55(6-75-100) -- - COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTI • AIR'POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION ANALYTICAL R. REPORT'. OF VISIBLE EMISSION VIOLATION COMPANY .), „.1<,, gee I 'r,,,f- , DATE f, ' 1 1 7 f ADDRESS OF SOURCE ff'e.c,,,t k ,'..Devi K/4 I ,1 1 City A Street� County AQCR STACK NAME / h 5. l3 P}�1 N �''£r.ti �e, 5fos.tic) BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION C 1 04 Y d t 4.- RELATIVE HUMIDITY .2 "� % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP f F Udll"D SPEED aq�� WIND DIRECTION(From) I,ICS`i Of )" PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) - f STACK HEIGHT /F; i' � Feet OBSERVERS LOCATION If°.l Feet 5. `'1 of Stack ' WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) L. P'41' CLOCK TIME 0 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction; 2) Sun Position; 3) Observer Position; • 4 ''' .C'l 0 1.‘,3. 14) orb , 4) Approximate Location of stack; 5) North Arrow, 01 LI !,J l )1? • If more than one stack is located at the plant site 02 ?('' 15 I5 specifically identify the stack being read. Include remarks. 03 i'7 ,t-' f$ °5 V 04 F` 1 /5' -. �, 05 p�' d . a, r_. , f- , I-, CS f5 t- (} (R- rY�;y�v f7 f 08 �..,-�• r-:r 10 s r 11 �r'.�,, s yt ,� r - 12 e,,,, l,T+�t 1314 (C°ti 15 I off! (- a.•t ,2 ';- 16 c.'u It .17 18 19 2, r' s e 21 22 24 r 25 26 27 23 . 29 r (2 ' . -�F•Cy" �,� 1 " ' DE-.SERVER: DAVE SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PERSONS PRESENT DURING THE EVALUATION: VZ— •1';`, /` --1__,9 .r Name. \. y;/,,4_.f,.'°� __'•'-. Name: ,q,7a 'h.' ' i, (.es 55"J F' , I,19)t t L c ,c( 2 l ! 4r sr ', ,,:.'.- fY c a Title: I „-t'c' ..-.J ' S%c�i v9 .1,, rlj,Iv kta fj, s c`_ Title: 4',. ' _ `7 d Date. 4- 1 f.-1 6, , tZ-2 Time -e,._..,riSignature: �,_. ;l't • yr.- / - - —.--- APC•5a_l 71:75_100) ,„- ,.. .„,,,,,,,,p,„ . z,...7.,,,,.7_,,,,,_ -a-. -- , ,-,----, 7. —.-_:7,77..,_ 7 - -. ---_r- E /,/r 0. 3 • EVC°TE �®0 December 29 , 1977 ADDENDUM TO REPORT FOR ROLANDA FEED, INC . DATED NOVEMBER 28 , 1977 Re : Laboratory reports on the copper analysis and the scrubber water analysis as required by the state of Colorado . The attached copies of the laboratory analysis are to be attached to the report dated November 28 , 1977 . The copper analysis indicates that the copper in the sample •was below the detection limit of the atomic absorption instrumentation used for this determination. • • . Testing to Preserve the Environment P.®. Box 15325 Lakewood, Coo. 80215 303-233-4082 M. 2E-,f�7' RESELA MCA, 11MC. 4601 INDIANA STREET ® ®F ANA p e' GOLDEN, COLORADO • 80401 REPO Stl OF ANALHSIS I TELEPHONE 303/279-4501 lv li. Van Madden Date: December 14 , 1977 Enviro-Test Ltd. P. O. Box 15325 HRI Project No. 4199 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 HRI Series No. 12593 Samples Rec'd 12/1/77 Analysis Sample mg No. Designation Total Cu • 12593 -1 Rolanda Imp Catch Test #1 • <0. 05 -2 Rolanda Imp Catch Test #2 <0. 05 -3 Rolanda Imp Catch Test #3 <0.05 -4 Rolanda Probe Wash Test #1 <0. 05 -5 Rolanda Probe Wash Test #2 <0. 05 -6 Rolanda Probe Wash Test #3 <0.05 -7 Rolanda H2O Blank <0. 05 -8 Rolanda Acetone Blank <0. 05 -9 Rolanda Feeds Filter Paper <0. 05 -10 Rolanda Feeds Filter G 11/22/77 T#3 <0.05 -11 Rolanda Feeds Filter F 11/22/77 T#2 <0. 05 -12 Rolanda Feeds Filter E 11/21/77° T#1 <0. 05 77 B§4: — �2 t ,— �G2�-L-------_, Jo C . Jarvis A anager, Analytical Laboratory eah RESEARCH AN:' DEVELL`Pt,',ENT fr1Q TI-1L :HEt,,VC,/V_ AND MIN`RAL INIA' 1RIES GENERAL OFFICES: 228 NORTH LA SALLE STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 80801 • AREA CODE 912 728-8494 Reply to ', w_.�:a. Al:t.=`�� • Instrumental Analysis Division Phone. 303-278-9521 '14335 West 44th Avenue Golden,Colorado 80401 • December 22, 1977 , Mr. Sam Geer ' .Enviro Test ' ' P.O. Box 15325 Lakewood, CO 80215 ' Re: ' 97-A810-095-01 ' Analytical Report Sample 11-5-77, a milky white solution in a glass bottle, was received November 30, 1977. It was analyzed for orthodichlorobenzene using a gas • chromatograph run under the following conditions: . Column: SP2100 Column Temperature: 130°C - Detector Temperature: 235°C ' Injector Temperature: 200°C Air: =300 ml/min H2: 35 ml/min - He: 40 ml/min The sample contained 0.056% (by volume) orthodichlorobenzene. If there are any questions regarding this analysis , please call . f ' Kathleen Simmons, Analyst M. L. Jacob, Ph.D. , Mngr. / )' KS/dt `,'''( ' ll�?;` y.., r ' CHICA8%IL•BIRMINGHAM,Al.•CHARLESTON,WV•CLARKSBURG,WV•CLEVELAND,OH •DENVER,CO• GOLDEN,CO•HENDERSON,KY•MIDDLESBORO,KY•NORFOLK,VA•VANCOUVER,B C.CAN - COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HI H AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DID _ N 0700 Qou ANALYTICAL REPORT OF V-I-S E EMISSION VIOLATION COMPANY PU - L[1.N,c+c1 CI:TeeaS 1I ' I(O• 21 � DATE ADDRESS OF SOURCE 62 5O W-eI� `-D „cl 5 � ► .,-,1�S�-t-' , k\ct 1 OW-n e, City Street County AQCR k)G e STACK NAME --DeYC l_ — \/ N-1"UQ.\ SCQUP2,ece.. STAG k BACKGROUND SKY CONDITION 1 1-1—1-- RELATIVE HUMIDITY % PSYC. WEATHER BUREAU AIR TEMP_oF WIND SPEED 1\-' 1 S - ao m l'>h WIND DIRECTION (From) N C PLUME CHARACTERISTICS(Color,etc.) STACK HEIGHT -a e Feet OBSERVER:S LOCATION hulk_ Feet CJ W of Stack WET PLUME or DRY PLUME: (If WET,estimate the breakpoint distance from the stack) CLOCK TIME 0 J 15 30 45 SKETCH: Include 1) Wind Direction: 2) Sun Position: 3) Observer Position. 0 4) Approximate Location of stack, 5) North Arrow, 01 If more than one stack is located at the plant site 02 specifically identify the stack being read Include remarks 03 04 05 06 08 07 �` c/' r O It (31A c I) 10 MAC 11 lf)12 W S l.V`''U 5.: 1/ 1314 c Uu J /„ - / 15 es' N 16 17 \, �� \� , C/3 cI.�'i✓6JJ 18 \_.. 1 19 20 — _ 21 ___ 22 _- -'` r 23 . e# T:16 f /' 25 k ` /10 !' -, C 26 - \ S/0/7C 27 \- \ 00047 28 i 29 //.r61 "7J W OBSERVER: �1 v DATE SIGNATURES: Duplicate of this Analytical Report Given To PERSONS PRESENT DURING T E EVALUATION: /Pay /� �� p� Name 4 rej� None f-f s^ a y C�1.v-/ �. Ike i(j7 Jeepo (�( / / /�_ Title �-I/�(�IT l' fitly �'x-`- C� C--c�04Ln� Ilnlu ) i yeZ,Y) bAle'l 4071 r line n /nJ ';itinatini' (//2) .< .4 / f X1.1 / ' ) n Iii -- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - FIELD INSPECTION WORK SHEET Key Punch Data: County Durce Emission __-tion Date Agency/ Number Number Point # Type Nb Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 1011101 13...-A i- -1— 1_;_1_1_1_1 LJl"l°l 19191�l 1_1_1 l 121°1717111 11-1°l`'1 l?` 1 3 4 7 8 12 1J 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. Dols. 1-15 from Line 1) LLiSl Ll lql 16 18 78 80 (NOTE: Columns not shown must be left blank) ( Do not punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: �t:-.%\CLvL(C--1/4 k-------k?e c ( 1.n, • SIC: Address: (L-c-) C( l.tJelct c d 1 County: We i--D Person Contacted: Phone: Inspected by: `-Lc:lnn\rk m{uv.J "%- c\-r Qll 11.ICH9 Time: ' Q • AM M� 1/ {i'3' \5 ,r,P1. �,. 1 �,k,,rl, i 1�lO.tne wc-us -IR\-A 11QI Cuh` ge 1 � dv.c --c., Lr•no1 u. 4. l y_-. .5,(c.,,,,, t.'4' ( ......."1) ,c n ,V V Us i hJ c� Sc ILm ma. c e- 114, , ur..; 1lD_ `l\ t'Qc. C-c.c..r�lG•r�' 'Ct''C!'•v"c J t.eccww ?-i�Mh�9.w•cv� cam', P�r�� l wnl -4.0-^NO `` c r.1 P 1�,.1cw.cdc Y 1�'C Y� ?,,,,,,....JO,,,,,.. tiLn�,l .46- cl1- 8..3.x, vi,nc -1, -.C: ,.,.nu.i•J- ` N ^ y. .- GI,rY,.,c act��rJl ft" 2v\,.:lei 017.,..-, u r C,.•m•.\ ,ti q. 2 L. l?.1Y, .sR a-t,v.... r, yr. N v i��.` js\ .+.�� a ��y r�cv,•••-t. ��x c:k•..CS . cl'.2 6 P I^� TI`4n' Q�_ A �tr� n c..r Sr!. 0,4 A — C Cl_.„-,t 1 t Y..cw,wu c.�oC� r� /��LL �( ( ` �k' 4yCnt tl Cl:l{S P 1^^. '7'e ykf. .: (a�s.- ::: ::',L.k31'4-"Ti,..4 1/((( c.-ri).Y/r .{{l�'•.. W.cl<• 0,w,-, \C 1 \- 0,,, nn 1 �, ��C },4J(sr( A-i f' Cl\C•rck•�r, %�. ✓C‘13 f 1 (y:,1CGwl.• G rct,1-..,v. 9 (l- 3Li I : I �� I 1, the al- e;-. 3 n S- I: " r•1 ARC-78 (Rev. 7-77-10 U, • Il,rr C, . ctnl ryt,� , -I,,,,, a,.) aI- QT. p. ` ro\.,t3,<l N. 1 .-.I.,�l ct) 3l! ( 1yT �h.t (.\.A„.4 wr•1 V4i'- t .fL LI I,(� u � ��CL(�L Y�ILL.f('V {`\),4-. \ cry, 4i, V.. II I,.A\a Y.SA1:3u,l jZ. O T. 7 7 {, 47 C (fir WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT RECORD Date 12-14-77 Hour Location. No. Street Rolanda Feeds, Inc. Occupant Owner Address Complainant Mr. Sherman Zimbalman Address Keenesburg_ c� Phone `- Nature of Complaint Driving into Keenesburq this morning, he noticed a heavy black smog hanging over the valley. Is sure it is coming from Rolanda. Every night, they can see sparks coming from Rolanda 's stack, Smells bad. Received by• DR Investigation by• Date: by: Date: Action. by: Date: Follow-up. Final Disposition. by: Date: •.. - , , . t • AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - FIELD INSPECTION WORK SHEET Key Punch Data: County __.irce Emission --Jon Date Agency/ Number Number Point N Type Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 1O111Oi 110 i 121_ 11.1.21 l_l_1_l_L1 l0Ll vl 1919171 1211 101 /1 /13171,1 l L l°i2 l 1N1 l 1 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols. 1-15 from Line 1) 1010151 101 1Cl 16 18 78 80 (NOTE: Columns not shown must be left blank) ( Do no= punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: /p -LNn,PA �EEUS ..1.-A,C SIC: / Address: 66-0 ? GVlld C*I7 £d 5/ County: G(/( Person Contacted: // J--6_,,A.„ / Phone: Inspected by: �p-?1 a Id k W.{ k( C it 1-1 , 1). Time: 3 2 5- AAM/E, X02,4NT NoT oe-e/JT n/C AT --Ti &-- , e,,,, a /uA i, /3 • 17.4' APC-78 (Rev. 7-77-10) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - L•'IELD INSPECTION WORK SHEET Key Punch Data: County $ 'ce Emission P on Date Agency/ Number Number Point t Type Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 1011101 11l2l `1 111111 1_11( '1_1 1919171 1_i�_i i� l 'i 'l 1 ,1' 1 l/l`l`1 1N1 1 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols. 1-15 from Line 1) 1°1°151 1'1 1C1 16 18 78 80 (NOTE: Columns not shown must be left blank) ( Do not punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: �, l ,. (\r, i- , ck . 7, ,, - SIC: Address: (;-' ,L `1 L. ; 1/4. C. 1•' ` I County: I. ‘c Person Contacted: r, Phone : Inspected by: ' l , , \A \l - .\ I - 1 • r 1-\ -.-L1 , C' D Time : i ( : 1 `• AM PM, ` 1 ' ll/,y)A cTl,`'1- tl u,-,-E ',j . ck., r.• , l .,^ _ l .J J- ' 1- . , �_ \ , 11, \' �1 l ,k, ( ‘LA , k 7‘••• A \"• • tea , t,., f , .\i); '''' ' '' - it i1 r") ( , O„ ,). 'k �'' ,l L i i; 1, lye �� 1 \) I 1 ' r -1 L ��1 ) II ,P 4 I. I / , r f .\ ,,N 1 v ,, 1) 11 1-Jl \t ' J �, � L ) 1 1 l +, 1 [ ♦ f 1 1•. _.._\ `, C. 1�i 4I, C I 4. l /l (/r Ir-, 'I/ f AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - FIELD INSPECTION WORK SHEET Key Punch Data: County srce Emission :ion Date Agency/ Number __nber Point I# .Yt�e Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 1011101 lz l?l?l 1 1 : 1 1 l 101001t 1919171 1.21'1 101 ( 1 ( 17171,1 11-1°1O1 IN 1 3 I. 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols . 1-15 from Line 1) 1010151 1Ql 1Cl lb 18 78 80 (NOTE: Columns not shown must be left blank) ( Do not punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: LC"'S cCe_ci , 17.2C . SIC: Address : 6507 GJ/et'd C]; go/ 6-1 County: aie(c* Person Contacted: / Phone : Inspected by: gN«/cf ' 'yoW t/aAN G ,4// Time: ?:5'3' /0:26- AM,CD e(d ODcCn7 / 4lea 644 �. l4-0,q o c trerrA raR. R . Ncui s 2.445 3G xi-l`L • IL }Ivvf Cssq .pqcoAA-) U. cm arr:vo� a - `�'. S5 P. Cr . — .� ��_ 4o \34.... `c`kr i rkq e i"-A jy41-1 41:71/j0 Gtrc > Jr- 5 a.. \Q-0 49 • �� e-d .�-� o�--1 . Ak'o a 5 w.r Cc d Aewl s Cie e.w•) . 15 0 � a ENE ck re cA i . o kijf- W"ild /)6P-41 I. /6?• 71' TIE r .tl,, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - FIELD INSPECTION WORK SHEET Key Punch Data: County irce Emission :ion Date Agency/ Number Number Point # Type Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 101110 1 l2lal21_.(21 111111 10101 °1 1919171 laiyl lot/ 1/031711-1 l≤10101 IN 1 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols. 1-15 from Line 1) 1010151 1?1 ICI 16 18 78 80 (NOTE: Columns not shown must be left blank) ( Do not punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: aeo -L G1/..o(�c C -?C o(s 1-n e .. SIC: Address: (Q So T (A)e/cd C got S/ County: Gvel ql Person Contacted: ,{ Phone : Inspected by: V47) k< (-row , iir7 .--- . &f/ier Time: 8:35— 9:2a' AM, P / Lt/((c( cruA44j /lea./( S /c3-o L c1, :3 o P.V% ' QeW N -1 co-U. toy, \-e.rnw,n.d r '�►,, U l ti y J�1� C i t \A-4...1t r1 -14,14.1NM R.S. Avt-4-L-Kr l ..1_,2_. \r`ad u'`�rc �{udta+. , T.,lra' 5?3- 024(. T.,l •►"' \;\-c NNE I ��,t�: v.4.o \,ad. c.o�l\tom `M its. e ich +o-\-tc- w��. f r.14, 1(v.a ci vim-- Z3:,-cl. 34, ‘4,,.Sa v. C !roldd, - r>0 -- S\- N -v,ou J - add m I r wk.,IL►..4r.r- U n co. �OC T t ..3 L -I-M3 (0'18'`1 vu4i C 42-d4 \ Te4\,.. C°O-ii.- s3‘ -yz.60 as 14 ir 4J1liikiPL C'."1 /� 1 /� t 2 ek 4--(7 — S #-ar t, O go„v- o�o�vv�r. i er�� W.a."' l7°�dt 1 l ue�D A tt�:vec3• o- & \ _4 \aJ Lnov.) k()_ S'r,.0rt E.,,,, r-tu) . Wstv.d CS.ire,c-iW. waS 4riw. 4e. S E 03- 3 �1, . TeC'etr._ 6\d . N 1 � a s c4,,,-k.w.4.4 4`G/,\,./ Itl ...-ry ( ) .---S,76 (nl G at. ( r ) t^- /�� `��. 42 loo-LANOA 1. CE • 18 Lc .A t&) pAr . 3 - '7: 1 J) /T s `R`R --+ Oc s Et-nack.4 c Nz.. €k vtvLd 8:SS P.M. OAre.,-t & trAA^^,-y ) C7 cam. wu4 1 A c�,`�r�c U.N`c d 1 P 4 - �( m VI ( 41 w •-Q. Fve-re - - c YZd I-r . Cam., J �i --o Ai-t. 1). v.AC,dt& ANA u - w a+ mid-0 I/oNta,l t ., . �(O O-4, O cl..0'10 U 41-q- -IL. — Lavv,O%. t l r irk — CAI Ic+l SI c.vr,.-c- '\nA-`'"-g4tt-,-t colr q:2 s P, r, . Fc -A ?\ww-4- fo-v, o 1„,,,dpeOwA /. ,9.7P' AIR POLLUTION CONTROL - FIELD INSPECTION WORK SHEET Key Punch Data: County rce Emission 1 on Date Agency/ Number Number Point ft Type Mo Day Yr Indiv. ID Line 1 1011121 111 1Ql°l 111111 1°101°i 1919171 1'2154 101/ 1/ 1q1 7181 141°1 °1 iNl 1 3 4 7 8 12 13 15 16 18 52 54 59 66 68 80 Compliance Status Line 2 (Dup. cols . 1-15 from Line 1) 1919151 171 1 C 16 18 78 80 (NOTE: Cclumns not shown must be left blank) ( Co not punch Line 2 if column 78 is blank) Company: 16-44/vat) Ce#(s , .-K. SIC: Address: 6,4-0? (Pete( d / 5'/ County: („4-1-((q1Person Contacted: Phone : Inspected by: (21,1r41-.1, /C. ypc),J) COED 6 H .? . Time : 6-...5/0 -- !o .2 U AM/6D SC'2.,r'•`fo,h1 /O O 2 Co nit/a//'11-s recurLcee : MRs. F-02 ti des s i' 0 '32 5 As ,...A,ck. �•-•r^ Nom. p uds, 53ts- LH 9 0 (\ARS. ' Koi€R Li: 4-") P.M • l rn\ s. i ICA CO ler Odor b o.d.. CT-• T _'7(. 514-423.E C�J,‘, rt,uz,d W;nx �.�et C;.a`N A rv. WI-4- °-"2-'s. a vc `Thl ��C�Hr.o.\er . d - '",, - ,�., Colo 4 W s 2 w'�,,�t-' - cr"ue"l s s es .Lsn. U ti2.2--- V..1- � or CAPc 1 - cn - ri :l 311- S . l 2. T ati. P —g a c N �'ra.e-ter ATS.. S• rP.11. �. - .n .�W„. r�cw�-L Rd ,4r, 4 ` ( . ..." P1 °3 u ' n 4- - o. 1 49 a-"Akl " fa . Q day �;J� JY�e'1` 0.r S7'V'°'�'j \ i o 1 h-415 Er%rAAVIA-u,pAmtvitk ,nc,k. dU`' �, J �yroYC A\t ,s Y�e'r� j\t or � AA FOL/ EA FL-LOS, 4- 76 Harry Co 1r, WCHD, found non-permitted r t when answering a complaint.— e_.o w.„,a y.29.?‘ y QO1,3 ra,ssEN 5-27-76 Application fcr permit received by CAPCD, #C-11 ,169 for small dryer Unit #1 . 6-01-76 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, no violation. 8-10-76 Emission permit C-11 ,169 issued. 1-03-77 Odor complaint from Mr. Robert Fritzler. WCHD notified by phone. 1-04-77 Letter to Dr. Yoder, WCHD, from Richard Fox, CAPCD, requesting inspection of Rolanda. 1-07-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, plant not operating. 1-18-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, unable to take readings due to high winds. 1-21-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, some fugitive emission problems. 2-15-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, no violations , dusting from hammermill and truck loading. 3-08-77 Emission permit application received by CAPCD for Unit #2. 3-15-77 Odor complaints received by WCHD. 3-18-77 Steve Strandberg, WCHD, reported strong odor from Rolanda". 3-25-77 Permit C-11 ,328 for Unit #2 issued and source test requested. 4-01-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, after receiving complaint from Commissioner Roe, no violation Unit #1 . 5-10-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, no violation on Unit #1 . 5-12-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, not operating. 5-19-77 CAPCD receivec letter to John Kinsey from Stanley L. Stolte stating operating would start May 30, 1977 on Unit 1;Z„ - letter dated May 9, 1977. 6-09-77 Complaint from John Carlson passed to WCHD. //6-10-77 Complaint from Allen Alter passed to WCHD. Ca . (3.17 (_jorvletw,n4- - fr. Nu-rt.,ns £'4,wE4- wcwD 6-14-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, violation of Regulation No. 1 , I .A.1 on Unit 41, Also Lloyd Land of Rolanda called John Plog requesting a meeting between CAPCD and Rolanda on the violation. 6-15-77 Telephone conversation John Plod and Lloyd Land setting up the pre-denial con erence. 6-16-77 Telephone communication John Plog and Antl•,cny 7arlengo, Rolanda attorney. 6-17-77 Pre-denial conference cancelled at last minute by Rolanda and rescheduled . U ' 6-21-77 Odor corn' nt received by WCHD. 6-22-77 Ron Stow, WCHD, attempted to make an inspection but was refused access. Off property observation showed opacity violation on Unit #1-. 6-23-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD, not operating. 6-24-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD, opacity 25 to 30% upon arrival , but baffles broke in during so plant shut down before readings could be made on Unit #.l. Also in P.M. , pre-denial conference was held at CHD. 6-28-77 Letter to Mr. Stolte from A.C. Bishard giving Rolanda 10 days to come into compliance. 7-06-77 Amended permit request received by CAPCD for addition of scrubber on Permit C-11 ,328. 7-08-77 Complaint from Mrs. Blair about odors passed to WCHD. 7-13-77 Letter dated 6-28-77 concerning the 10-day extension was hand delivered to Rolanda Feeds , Inc. , by Lonnie Lantz and Paul Adams of CAPCD and Ron Stow, WCHD, sirce they would not pick up the copy mailed to them. 80% opacity was noted upon arrival , however, plant was shut down after inspectors infcrmed company officials they would make observations. Letter had beer refused when Ron Stow tried to deliver it previously. 7-15-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, photographs were taken after obtaining permission to take them from Mr. Stolte, President, • Rolanda; stack in violation of opacity limits. 7-18-77 Letter to Rolanda Feeds , Inc. , returned to APCD after it was not accepted by the company. Post office sent them notices that letter was to be picked up on 6-30-77 and 7-12-77, then returned the letter on 7-14-77. 7-22-77 Letter to Mr. Stolte from A.C. Bishard about the amended permit application and requiring an oxidizing agent be added to the scrubber water. 7-26-77 Letter to John Clouse from Mr. Fritzler about odor problems from Rolanda. 7-28-77 Complaint from Mr. Alter passed to WCHD. 7-29-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow, WCHD, not operating. 8-02-77 Compalints from Mr. Alter and Mr. Shaklee. Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron S:ow WCHD. 8-03-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler. Richard Fox CAPCD went to her home and talked with both the Eichthalers and the Shaklees - no violation found. Letter to Governor Lamm from George Shaklee, received by CAPCD via David Herrera , about Rolando problems. 8-04-77 Inspection/o_ by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Sto,i, WCHD, not operating. lmelv...4 1,. Sve r.rn Jam., 1....1.J......, kKoianaa) (.1:3) ' 8-08-77 Inspecti )y Ron Stow WCHD, not operatin5. 8-09-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. 8-12-77 Inspection by Ron Stow WCHD. Memo to Mr. Herrera from A.C. Bishard about Mr. Shaklee's letter. 8-15-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler passed to WCHD. 8-22-77 Letter from Sam Geer at Enviro-Test Ltd. to John Kinsey about source test to be conducted on 9-22 and 23. 8-23-77 Complaint from Mr. Alter passed to WCHD. Inspection by Steve Strandberg WCHD, not operating. 8-24-77 Complaint from Jan Masie passed to WCHD. Inspection by Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. 8-25-77 Inspection by Steve Strandberg WCHD, not operating. 8-26-77 Inspection by Mark Parsons CAPCD, no violation. 8-29-77 Inspection by Mark Parsons CAPCD, no violation. 8-30-77 Inspection by Steve Strandberg WCHD, no violation. 8-31-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, no violation. 9-06-77 Inspection by Mark Parsons CAPCD, no violation. %. 5. wc.N9) 9-09-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler passed to WCHD. 9-15-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD, not operating. 9-16-77 Letter from A.C. Bishard to Sam Geer outlining additional requirements on source test. 9•x•77 Co LQ.&ni Pr.m C1cWIuateatt -to gKS•weuy Cox v.ctiF1gD• Fc,c LiecPLuD &1ctvtHAtiY,- ctn•L ,pA NQr- 9-21-77 Telephone communication between Richard Fox CAPCD and Van Madden °4a11'""�` of Enviro-Test postponing date of source test at Rolanda until October 6 and 7. 9-26-77 Letter from Mr. Zarlengo about confidentiality of Rolanda 's process. 27.77 Gonow\M kmas. Gicorikuirtt. - RKiTOV1 GEPpu•tNyVfcneu- CZ. N.T uPQP-AT Nc 9-30-77 Letter from Sam Geer of Enviro Test about running Cu. Lo •63.7? n,?too ,w. n- . emo1-w►.can. 10-04-77 Letter from A.C. Bishard to A. Zarlengo answering question of confidential material . 10-06-77 Source tests cancelled after start by testers. 10-17-77 Letter from J. Kinsey to Sam Geer stating Cu must be run. l0-?5-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, no violation. 11-04-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler passed to WCHD. lKoianaa) r 11-04-77 (cont. ) . • Inspection by Ron Stow and John Hall WCHD, no violation. Letter from Enviro Test setting November 21 and 22 as test days. 11-16-77 Inspection by Ron Stow and Harry Collier WCHD, two odor violations of 170:1 found at 5:47 and 6:06. (re, 11-21-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD, source test ok, ran #1 opacity ok. 11-22-77 Inspection by Richard Fox and John Kinsey, CAPCD, source test runs #2 and 3, odors ok. 11-28-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. 1 •1z•T7 rncc .1 cO, sHD - AL te C'.1ou1,� G'o�- c'ND S fir dlscvcric�. d( Qo'1N'd�'' 1Cde, s-6,01 gC sir: vvw&t'c\ 'try 4' S S . "?.zrc�:� w1 '� dl 4+ (kb) Pe�rnl� � 12. 0 • rj \-J a'"*`'w l ll b.1 w .‘Plc"�- �r�ti�N.wti �..n�r^a^-• �c�un-1` 0'. 1 0,.1-' 4' '1 YM�uw^ 1� cry,.ki 31..1 iT �y 1e..•# ? ".g'.s Z • 13 • ?S' Snrp• Q ti s+,,W - Nod o c�-,.n3 o t Ro-Lw..d�� 1. • '11 �nrP b RLS 4,.u, -qe 7G E4a\k.- \5 : 1 3 T c+y.2d �'I . t ' 1?•rit pla 6orAm u., l�earl�, - QdSL �v,vtliA5.4`� 12x:4-1�ow -. N o odor s -c-ou.^d • 1 • \p •�� 1a,m{t - ree 131 RkS`tc \2k sew- . tck .Z F r^Tlcu„ s vccw�e� - rc e. b.t � a • ROLANDA FEE"c 1 4- 76 Harry Collier, WCHD, found non-permitted plant when answering a complaint.— c.ow,pin,na y Zo•�� by 2oN marEw 5-27-76 Application for permit received by CAPCD, #C-11 ,169 for small dryer Unit #1 . 6-01-76 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, no violation. 8-10-76 Emission permit C-11 ,169 issued. 1-03-77 Odor complaint from Mr. Robert Fritzler. WCHD notified by phone. 1-04-77 Letter to Dr. Yoder, WCHD, from Richard Fox, CAPCD, requesting inspection of Rolanda. 1-07-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, plant not operating. 1-18-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, unable to take readings due to high winds. 1-21-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, some fugitive emission problems. 2-15-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, no violations, dusting from hammermill and truck loading. 3-08-77 Emission permit application received by CAPCD for Unit #2. 3-15-77 Odor complaints received by WCHD. 3-18-77 Steve Strandberg, WCHD, reported strong odor from Rolanda. 3-25-77 Permit C-11 ,328 for Unit #2 issued and source test requested. 4-01-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, after receiving complaint from Commissioner Roe, no violation Unit #1 . 5-10-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, no violation on Unit #1 . - 5-12-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, not operating. 5-19-77 CAPCD received letter to John Kinsey from Stanley L. Stolte stating operating would start May 30, 1977 on Unit #k - letter dated May 9, 1977. 6-09-77 Complaint from John Carlson passed to WCHD. 6-10-77 Complaint from Allen Alter passed to WCHD. G (3.17 jomPlcain4 -cr+N. t•lu.rt'Ln3 ft+-wQ4- weND 6-14-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, violation of Regulation No. 1 , I .A.1 on Unit /,, Also Lloyd Land of Rolanda called John Plog requesting a meeting between CAPCD and Rolanda on the violation. 6-15-77 Telephone conversation John Plog and Lloyd Land setting up the pre-denial con erence. 6-16-77 Telephone communication John Plog and Anthony Zarlengo, Rolanda attorney. 6-17-77 Pre-denial conference cancelled at last minute by Rolanda and rescheduled. I 6-21-77 Odor complaint received by WCHD. 6-22-77 Ron Stow, WCHD, attempted to make an inspection but was refused access. Off property observation showed opacity violation on Unit #.. 6-23-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD, not operating. 6-24-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD, opacity 25 to 30% upon arrival , but baffles broke in during so plant shut down before readings could be made on Unit #2. Also in P.M. , pre-denial conference was held at CHD. 6-28-77 Letter to Mr. Stolte from A.C. Bishard giving Rolanda 10 days to come into compliance. 7-06-77 Amended permit request received by CAPCD for addition of scrubber on Permit C-11 ,328. 7-08-77 Complaint from Mrs. Blair about odors passed to WCHD. 7-13-77 Letter dated 6-28-77 concerning the 10-day extension was hand delivered to Rolanda Feeds, Inc. , by Lonnie Lantz and Paul Adams of CAPCD and Ron Stow, WCHD, since they would not pick up the copy mailed to them. 80% opacity was noted upon arrival , however, plant was shut down after inspectors informed company officials they would make observations. Letter had been refused when Ron Stow tried to deliver it previously. 7-15-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, photographs were taken after obtaining permission to take them from Mr. Stolte, President, Rolanda; stack in violation of opacity limits. 7-18-77 Letter to Rolanda Feeds, Inc. , returned to APCD after it was not accepted by the company. Post office sent them notices that letter was to be picked up on 6-30-77 and 7-12-77, then returned the letter on 7-14-77. 7-22-77 Letter to Mr. Stolte from A.C. Bishard about the amended permit application and requiring an oxidizing agent be added to the scrubber water. 7-26-77 Letter to John Clouse from Mr. Fritzler about odor problems from Rolanda. 7-28-77 Complaint from Mr. Alter passed to WCHD. 7-29-77 Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow, WCHD, not operating. 8-02-77 Compalints from Mr. Alter and Mr. Shaklee. Inspection by Richard Fox, CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD. 8-03-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler. Richard Fox CAPCD went to her home and talked with both the Eichthalers and the Shaklees - no violation found. Letter to Governor Lamm from George Shaklee, received by CAPCD via David Herrera, about Rolanda problems. 8-04-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow, WCHD, not operating. C�rhY�Qn1 b� Sherman tjoianaa) 3 8-08-77 Inspection by Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. 8-09-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. 8-12-77 Inspection by Ron Stow WCHD. Memo to Mr. Herrera from A.C. Bishard about Mr. Shaklee's letter. 8-15-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler passed to WCHD. 8-22-77 Letter from Sam Geer at Enviro-Test Ltd. to John Kinsey about source test to be conducted on 9-22 and 23. 8-23-77 Complaint from Mr. Alter passed to WCHD. Inspection by Steve Strandberg WCHD, not operating. 8-24-77 Complaint from Jan Masie passed to WCHD. Inspection by Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. 8-25-77 Inspection by Steve Strandberg WCHD, not operating. 8-26-77 Inspection by Mark Parsons CAPCD, no violation. 8-29-77 Inspection by Mark Parsons CAPCD, no violation. 8-30-77 Inspection by Steve Strandberg WCHD, no violation. 8-31-77 Inspection by Ron Stow, WCHD, no violation. 9-06-77 Inspection by Mark Parsons CAPCD, no violation. �r-:•a-L't %.1 5. Lwc & ) 9-09-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler passed to WCHD. 9-15-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD, not operating. 9-16-77 Letter from A.C. Bishard to Sam Geer outlining additional requirements on source test. �j ?�•?? ComrloZini Pr•m Mar. £LC tT.4ALG.Q -o Q .woLID Cos.wcTi�1gD. •cuC RecPbue ww hi - it*-L$1pA NQr- 9-21-77 Telephone commurication between Richard Fox CAPCD and Van Madden �` of Enviro-Test postponing date of source test at Rolanda until October 6 and 7. 9-26-77 Letter from Mr. Zarlengo about confidentiality of Rolanda's process. '1.27-77 Gorhp\o.\ -Perim% vnaa Zkowri4At,ptl. - QtCrtoui GEPAu•tuSVeer%aN- Qla+-d, No, uPczyzp, 9-30-77 Letter from Sam Geer of Enviro Test about running Cu. Lc) •03.77 t,on1P1a1nE •Prow. Mit GLCNrws..cait 10-04-77 Letter from A.C. Bishard to A. Zarlengo answering question of confidential material . 10-06-77 Source tests cancelled after start by testers. 10-17-77 Letter from J. Kinsey to Sam Geer stating Cu must be run. 10-25-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, no violation. 11-04-77 Complaint from Mrs. Eichthaler passed to WCHD. . •4 kKolanaa� • 11-04-77 (cont. ) Inspection by Ron Stow and John Hall WCHD, no violation. Letter from Enviro Test setting November 21 and 22 as test days. 11-16-77 Inspection by Ron Stow and Harry Collier WCHD, two odor violations of 170:1 found at 5:47 and 6:06. (Set. +cvl• 1 11-21-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD, source test ok, ran #1 opacity ok. 11-22-77 Inspection by Richard Fox and John Kinsey, CAPCD, source test runs #2 and 3, odors ok. 11-28-77 Inspection by Richard Fox CAPCD and Ron Stow WCHD, not operating. t\ •30•T7 CYNcc•1-\hg SH) — A 0.6veste. k ,c)•4- sHD dlscvccia+• i mc Qo'l-uk'' 4cdec, S•6wi 610. ]:'k\- We 9-u—LaNd.R 301c• •\2S�t vv`uC �a 1crk-o +ma. S . yi.c't1o* av-C QO'LArv•� EM\cC,L^ft •W�� t:�t(�i�h�s (l�) \2.. o`7 • rrl Zv s .�io•. 2e_t✓o„•.l� ti 21C.41vw Gt�.�1 b. wMPlath�- •�'+om \'Zc t 1 0,•E- ck v""k 31:1 311T k+ q'.s9 ?•M• l2 •k • Z� 4-orvycaty•-4 -C--r+r• cl hex+th.•. ,m�.lr.�w. 1 • 13 • '7k Sns . QV- — No's o ��►^5 a� R14-Lon.4"t • ,4.zk rrrP 1,1 -q T61-kaA— \5 : 3)!T c4 E . 1 • 1'7.(It pt a 6mrmssiu+,tryr, Ll2ctrl P • odors •1p •�f tor^41ai,,,,Azt _ sae 'tnsP. - .1nr? � 1)/7- 014'4. fit 3)/* i n 1"L VAS trn. l • lq•Z F to mTka 'tck - r`c I). b. C2k s-kbw T111 t.. ; N n Z w _1.1 MI _ w DENVER— �N 7_ Is p� (.11 4.6). HIMN ( W U .( �1 r r ', ,� r r /t? Z44 +• N ) W7 ?�\ �� IU it tri Lbd /• s • N n try)°,6>-`6 • F © Jl oe ytao • 0 j X49?p . p CM \ (�, o u <g1 / I • • r © r • o \) 1 ( nCO \ 0 4 65:7l; OZ6 JOE + 1 • 2! • A c _ \ i ce.- trm / p ___al C•• $ )1° / p • ,e, *. a ---- , ‘ 1 (At, ot of1/4:: I \ p N X / ) ( • c\.7....) / : cr) : 43 ' • I i u t \ N 1•\ \\ l M s I I \_... `, c�.1.....:\ \r" f c 00 lb 4.--t----2) "-N. _I A Ile tAD ! i \ A* ii*tD c. �. r N hi u- II • r 0 • \\i--, cii c• ) lb -•• •mmft\Thc) . . (t) 0 IL .%%,..,...... .., cCa ° ifir} ..... (of'... .I..S.:17"....r.. ' • j)3 ) Alt • .7 a r-) ii . w; ----...„ ., .",, ..-....7-1N--- ...„H \_ ::V i L.„..\ 1, _ 17-N,H.;97-- -- - 2 \--N:::N .-107-sittelve—S ' - -- - . ( , ,ii \., L.,::{7 -,_____„\_ • 13, s O M tsto ,K \----)k.///. ,./. /A "1/1). ,� j ett • cri , \ tom^ — — — - - — Ill 7 i le‘C 0 IS) / ) / • �� • • CC. 43 j t� CO ti s�� :1\1 ` a :-...,,,, j I r\ \\ \ � 31d, % / J11 r---C--117— - �� 11 r 0196° A � i' n I r � IS ' 0 \\ 11 O ,0 li W ° j ni ..,, 4 9-r) ...) s / /r.f) l • Z • C ♦ f• .--- _ Ittll: 4litre C s \/ / ♦ , l / ) 1 c tic \\,..„..... ,/ 4" . .1 .-...- t - 7 I ;• *- . tzi 1) ) re-... --"------1 . _ _ . 0et‘ i--- • # - -'" ::. % . - -1 ic: \ ... ' iP / i ( o (/ / 4 ir 01 21 i / V I l� do • Nj i• 1 • /7 V_____ ••• --- -:---°--'-...---'.. .%\i ‘9 - „,---.... .."' e .; (7/ 464I y iii ,------ J 7 „, 1.:,......../ , c, 7 e - ...,......y _ __ No-- • } , I • 7•• 4,,,‘ ,., . Oc_eir ti i y / J •Ole. r cn 6 = ,��/ttd-- t` o� / . j/e.".../ -..- /44:\ �gVI t) 7#St_I. = yte- WIr, / IV ' Y" . �Jf DSO ,y - A 07 �` • "1 %• e •sue :L � f NO a� �� NI i ' ( i ‘‘. , ) sps• Hlit It r ill c , p a O t � 10 OD • 1,� u I' 01 J/ ) 1. `t l 1 , C"\\ ? . -16.1 l„,---"'N'Hyt � J ' T ` / / E ` i _____,t,OO- i ), • i v • ) ..".„- , ,te ..7,.........7? .__ ---/ lie • - _ - / Apo lrit --.......a.--- _...„. / / / +/AA N I , 4 N \ II 1 . li. J , F a n l I ,,, N.-„m 7` 4, k._ / I ',I✓ / • , - - 1 �' 4 / CC\ Z''' 1 py R,, t' yr `' d ,_, bc ^I ,y i r �J.l 4 �'^- .a'= - i ' 1 �� / 5 .-w.:-_.�..-_rs....=ar..-fts.,.......ao......aw..... r."._..•v^+E.- � �=�=�,ri1,__�csw*___ --.._ .- -.:. .- ¢-•?4: __:..1 S-b.T-+,'1.''t.c,.�.N- l A ta�\J C ,,-_ , 1 - ..., I i ..,2 ; 1 ; 1 > , k_.;\ } A i % •Recorded .f /4 `.oVcI 4 M ,MAR 3 - 1972 • :'Rea.N .158481 ?t. Rte.. r0 ef��" I // /57 7 . . IJPLI - a°°K66:3 C. D. No. / 7 - 1 QUITCLAIM DEED 1 1 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,in consideration co of the sum of $1.00 and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which co v1 is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim'unto UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Utah corporation, and unto its successors and assigns, all right, title, interest, and estate of Champlin Petroleum Company in and to the following described lands situate in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, o . ` to wit: c.) Township 2 North, Range 63 West Section 31: Lots 1 & 2 (W;W1r), E1/2%1%, SE% rte, 1 t Township 1 North, Range 64 West Section 1: Lot 2 (N' NWi/a), S1hNW1/a, S1/: Section 3: Lot 2 (N'/.NW1/a), S1NW1/a, S1/ Section 5: Lot 2 (N1hNW%a), S1 NW%, S12 Section 9: NW%, S% Section 11: SE%a Township 2 North, Range 64 West Section 25: NW1/a, S% except CB&Q r/o/w Section 27: NW1/a, S3' except CB&Q r/o/w Section 29: NW%, S1h except CB&Q r/o/w Section 31: Lots 1 & 2 (W1iW1%), E1/2W1/z, SE1%a except CB&Q r/o/w Section 33: NW1%, S1 Section 35: NW%, S1 Signed and delivered this 21st day of January, 1972. ,,ATST: ••., CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY HIV '`) _ By 2 1 ' 4.10-far4,0Sbchte.Wy Vice President • • •. . i ..- 111`... 663 Approved u to form and emotions Zd. C>4.- 2-: -0-- Asst. Western Generalap t . 58486 •6°°K 663 -r , ,. STATE OF TEXAS ) - S . COUNTY OF TARRANT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21st day of January, 1972, by D. O. Churchill as Vice President of CHAMPLIN PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Delaware corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. e• ii�, SVXa� Suozovv......) 'I, 1 CI • ,.:.'-',', Notary Public in and for c • t".;,, County, Texas ,•'1'• .' .... My Commission Expires: NOT' ' , TARR4N: u. ,f .L.4j MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 1, 1973 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 47-1!! PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT 400 915 10TH STREET OGREELEY, COLORADO 80631 • COLORADO January 5, 1978 To Whom It May Concern: The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request by Rolanda Feeds, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a chicken manure dehydration facility on property described as Pt . El NE,i, Section 31, T2N, R64W of the 6th p.m. , Weld County, Colorado. The meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission is scheduled for 1 : 30 p.m. on January 17, 1973. The meeting will take place in the first floor hearing room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. You are receiving a copy of this notification because your name appears as a surrounding property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. i ';� I II "" 't I MI N I ()I I�I-ANN:N(; Sf HHVICES I.•i` ; � � • :'+ + vat COUNTYCLNT[NNAI I CI NPR x y,•." I1�- O ' ') Illlh ;iHl (f )7 (V C,IILLL.LY, COLORADO 80631 GARY Z. FORTNER ),._moo, DIIiCCTCJI'iOFPLANNING ti v ,R ti; to_ PHONE (303) 356,4000• EXT 400,,,,,.„ rt, „ ..... ,COLORADO May 25, 1977 To Whom It May Concern : The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request from R.nl anda. Feeds, Inr ._ for a Special Use Permit for a Dehydration Facility on property described as follows : pt . E;, NEI , Sec. 31 , T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M. If you have any suggestions or objections, will you kindly notify us in writing before June 8, 1977 Tentatively, the meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission is scheduled for June 21, 1977 . If you wish to attend the meeting, please call the Department of Planning Services ( 356-4000 ext . 404 ) one week prier to the tentative meeting date , and we will ' be able to provide you with more accurate information on the date, time, and place of the meeting. You are receiving a copy of this notification because your name - appears as a surrounding property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. . WELD COUN 1-Y COMMISSIONERS GLENN K BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON ', JUNE STEINMARK FEE 2 mammy..cola kieI CGS�i� (O fA//s e s /,' i /rep la /o g,�<1 n-'d l� f c d S L'e F c)cly/e ,,v f e #4,(76 c. /1e e.,-/se/c':/ ,q/'e-,4 ?AA-, 74 SJ� rve's l�f/ /7v &A ei/i l/e- lrJccve- /?S C1 // • / ��' l/ Ge , �4// / �f[e �c'e�1 ��ic�+ /��/ (.1447��/S5/ wej=.S", /j,s./ C/ [L/eI 6 C1 / / GH >✓� cic,, Coc(M' S/d/'✓/ /5 /9 pe7/71,,,/✓ /7(7/9 7` fie Ore//-,.0 ;,v 7i- `/l /e o h .vc� �'c-r�s. /•mac T a j� I a -' />Pi t Wit ≤ ept, L'!2es of' • L,eia „96,ey J f .tl/s l7pc, , 4//e,�� Lv�{ /�Rr�d' ,� �l ,q eA, sr1/_-,,/ G�,)d ��N• ,,„�1 714'6 Set.-J-[ /0 be f1�1/•2.jCr:.:i7 e'J /le pey/e /A-' 71//5 fine e dr,4[. c /,74.-7 /34/ /ft i Ci/7f_� ✓� / e C.u��7(y toll 1ltc'f'WNd/f tet-/S /�'G, Loc,Id /1/4, e i 'c_0,[/ i`;ec/� if.t'/S /^-i GLi///ICk /e r?4- d e Close: , 'e.,tl�/lots /a �''<c I//Ie/Kt / •`/ if'�hfl.U44 ,('eels /,i, //pis •S j/{/e 7- e e',-tl`91,7 /ocorie, b e u t e 414v(' e /i eQ' ��bS e9 c 7th rs Cpl ss F Lc.,0/2/C ll � / 1 T17 S /3ri c,q, /e �t��7lri4 e 7/0 �vli/f/ titf��'i E .�,+l �71� c � F t eerie Jose Pa 1i, / /I ' 1e &-/cf / S5/ / r re / Woo/al be No (4"/R:7,1:71 A/,2061/9 ~�' {fiF j r pe.yi/e t0 la0C 474 7 ese ///e, J0,4 S / ©,/2 `; a ,7L/ 4 os•l1 O�` u,l,/Pi <` d1 v Sjil 7 ecJ/ g /''/e ///61-.56 e S,sl/(/ i e 7L I 0 /4 5 r-T u.,�'�' d like 74 / r1/tr1 ex( fv /e is cif% 4,,'5 /��iCC o/- fi v Ciy/e;t!'/,1//^,-, Ai, I .)'E'i•e'//9/f I n'eA1So.�,f' // ,' so !/✓�'�"r,vc�i? ///42J er'.4. df '///T/"'`? // J — Ca['ti' ,y e,9,71.s - /1 oc//e, j y7e41k' 't-'Occu • • 1a/lo[w,vf /7,V( ft f'Pc� �/- 7 4C e; / cp'i'Wi i., /i•' e) pl f:z h?F/t �,, V • - ci 1.21716' 5 ell- d' ,7116 �/'F./ /A ; . r�' C•S C E'y f'e'd rl c A; L ('f Lrf /ii E', C f7 rnC'G r'/ ci (SUN `44/../(-2 /r't (I e C'6' 14.7 471 C C t.:.;41/711 161wry! t (' IBC /'C'ti <:i /e', (2/3 a fc/[- /4/4"7..A.,;1-4 ,L'!f' / /'/2,c, ;r j ' c 7L/)' Ile 6,1".A //LI'S, &11, a by I7 /k/�F �r<"/ ' it. ' A):C/><VSr' Li/ f/1<_ Ce f. - k.17, / ft)//sic r"YLC "-/ j` f.- 211 eR / _S 7 _ 4,O et 71e O 1 IS /� / ' ' /I SI ' v /rP fly `iCf :7i, 1`� 6 t" /��FS Cf1�( St'� J(/+ f 5 S c" '/-/4s 6-/,'e//};/- r'› "/fj„� � R ff/' e,(!:e/ Ay.,c_ j //1 / //' /vo t, i(E'P ill( S CI'rE'aaZ' ' ti' / 5 ; ) r 7 / If( / a, /7/-/ /777(/ /er,//114c/ /fA 41 } , / / `142CL • r ye). JO o/ 7(1M � ( ),4 G . 11-eg (--;-1- --,2--2-z Zy (7-1,-7 /(1.:-6.-=.-e...-- -,--- --4--e-1---/X-1 ,71.-e-Ce.-r -2,-,_... C---.7-.7-2 .�--(- -1 . h L 4,- "_i ,.i fVl!Gc/1.-mom ••-__.c.„..-1-7-t-e->. 4.t.Lee., 24.e.e...)...-777„.c.-Ici,. ,_2�-2- T�e.t/L-r_s� 6/,,(. 2.t ECC,2 .//41—e l ez--fr-i_,_,..;-04/ - "4---1---/ ---re-z-e'-7-t-a--1-1 r ,_ a oV ry 5•rw LtL759 OfT4- C I:• COLO, 4 ,.` 111 Z,et .,_- )2tt . :=4 0-4../-7z e,t___- . ,.___?L. a_r11,- - -t-t -t 2 -aj --e-;�1... A e. o,,-tr. c.._ -- 4 D U /U �2 X"./(9--c-z._2 -t/.(1.._.., ./� -z'kr. "-7'GL C{ L. /O,L.diel ae...7-)<,_ _,,,.1.. ..._, _....,... ..„ A d-- -- zt --e---2,,_ -14_ ;e: -6-- z C- a_ A t_u G _ ---zck.--,-,c_._, .,___, _....e_...„6„..,__cazei t.,,,,,,,, „ 42 zi---,7--X,„;L‹. i_ L-'.7Jt_ce,z,_e_ l�p_�11_%C:�-2-e-te2 ---4 ----C/i--� --44j ,7.--e---/- --e...---_,I, .../7":„A_ -__ /2,....4.,,t_..),„, ..___24.., ,tz? __e:Z ,,„c7.4--,,..<,..___, C2- e a `c- -t-d___6,),<' /<ti !sir` - e-I-L t 7 _, _6____ _,Le.._..1 .,1.._.c,Id_ ....A.7,1 4,,,c,t,,,„.„_14_, oc i 4�I"t'14�, j.�,,t/ __14-1,,..Q._ ) .., —'C- -[�) ✓LTA-fCf ,_,-1,1-4-52- -4..tA..9----,' •-- e-Ze .e. 6/ ,I./ a--2-e- e----t_ ._.-, (..Jr � �j -Li - t /------e-ii-e-.72 c /-6712_-/ .�Z-1t-1[.� --Cu fc___ `i® LL c' -N l 9-c c Al` �i" L --L.2L, ,,• .(--C e-a-t- • , ‘,-- )uz_ 0---kju6 tnk_k_ JILL (-4.3-ei--'IL_ kt" M-Q AL- ----f.--1--l-4 „5,Z4'E---14---6-3.--L., 0 / gat.-2,Lr .r�t k � t .�c�E-C-�'_� • ✓L ,/t Jan c� ' t , �/�C.C�I�/S2 -�L� �' ✓6 _<�/� �C�� '`�'-t�L.�r-LAC -C �') 4.7e, "ebruary 1, 1978 2.0. Box 14.3 Hudson, Co. 80642 • Jerry Kiefer 915 10th St. Greeley, Co . 80631 Dear sir, Please vote no the Rolanda Feed issue . The scrubbers installed have not helped at all . The odor is as bad as before they were installed I live in Hudson which is approximately 3 miles from the plant. When the winds are right, the smell is unbearable. _ Si erely,id cyigi,vt/&2-& e O'er 63 ��=�C�LV W, CITIZENS INSURANk.c AGENCY, INC. _insurance — .'eallors CITIZENS STATE BANK-KEENESBURG,COLORADO 80643 Telephone:732-4246 --Metro:i2XXX3X 629-6457 vouw nGepenOenl ip lnsuronre'IAGEN nT 1-31-78 REALTOR® ' Re: Rolanda Feeds At 8:10 A.M. this morning, January 31, 1978, you step out the door of the building and the smell from Rolanda would make you take a quick gulp of air and then not breath thru your nose till you got to another building. I called John Hall at the Weld County Health Department to advise of the time of the incident and a few minutes later went to see a customer who lived 3/4 mile East of Weld Road 83. While I was at that location checking some buildings, the smell from Rolanda had moved to that point so that it was easily noted. Once you have smelled it - you don't mistake it for anything else. Now, if you will look at a Weld County map you will see that the location I described, which is right on Highway 52, is over 16 miles East of the Rolanda plant. I do not care what concentrations are permitted under accepted State Health guidelines. Anything that is distinguishable at that distance after being diluted with dean country air has to be intolerable when discharged. Again, there can be no justification for a permit to operate unless the odor problem is stopped. Sincerely, ,---) L Philip Bowles CC- Board of Commissioners Planning Commission Weld County Health Dept. 1 JAN "N70 REC5,1V ED kS VIM County J inuary 30, 197$;-xPlan., R L0l i1SSl4t1 Mr. Gary Fortner ��' Director of Planning Services for Weld Coomty •`"661!,!U''� 915 10th St. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Fortner; Re: Rolando Feeds -ie urge that Rolandac request for a Special land use permit be denied. The scrubbers do NOT eliminate the odors and the pollution from this plant is making our lives unbearable . I can' t even hang out the wash when the wind is comning fro,a their direction. No one .hould have to eufZer such degradation from their neighbors. Please put an end to our suffering. Thank you. 9e 4 Zelda Shaklee 7627 'acid County Rd. 49 Hudson, Colorado 80642 9y ,J9 /9 ,6 (', 7d 2 LL, /9/2 (4T - FEB 1978 ;;\ 71 yotAy4e.aik) RECEI VE aj Weld County &Li aa. 0 vn � ,fiylzG1l �4 -�'�`� Narks Commissi-R - 9/df. /1,-4 i'-� c��, �� •,,, 9 ;, q/�.M�' 3, do, �D‘ / "`��O 72 V m--.�xGe) C y e_?G 4, / �1..a.L Le. Xitz.o2<ib . _c v-C Gt./26 /r U/g/rGZ'/-�1,,ziAsJ ;2_&71-t 45 .i .yrU ! 7--1— G-<,:.' -c-,--2,6-4z-,,,,,,46„ ,ice,,L.„ f..,G-,„,-,z1 _f,,,Zc,=C ,„ c; .G� i. ,../A/,,,,,,62,/ ., ---)2zdL4-Ly—e---,v0 -z-4, (-_,4_,/z--,, .-c__Z--z (-2,•) Pl-, 4-44 A-e-ti -L---42- 64,46‘-2&L,Z- -,0 -44 l ".a-,_ ) ...4,,,f'-G /'Lllfi"�G f;,•-Ty (..(1/p o G. y�4 r9 L4 A_4,L_L!t /l.,'.� , ____Z,J 2 e.e Cr - -/Le-) --)G;-.2'C-e- -e ' z"clu: "9-li✓r'7-/ 2E Av--.L :-:-: (6 _ LL�'L6v /4.2. / / 6-� /'I.2G e. e'�:-1 Y a<< ,714:,n-1.-,Li (__L J 0/r -e-e„ G (/a/, -"Y- �' --'LO —L Ve a-Cf 4✓ �Lc��G (� �Ce.-�itdL 1 / I G � C /L�( r i?•�?'L I!ti'vi J , %c c,J _vide_ - a- Z L'• 49-�''.G �1 O ,z )0-0 az,,, ,/ .-�Cl- 61‘.1_,) i ;6.-d ug &i2e.�/,,i e-/ i U GV' -' - -L 2' 4,-' t*LLE 4L� CP(--. �(� ,' ' G/ ,�4.- '--��/ -f� .c�� // ((JI/e."Y (Z;14'e L/Ide ./: 2—) /4 e , zd_12. /Ler 1 /--(71e2 / e/z Le) i7/-Z/-4) Z4 � /�� .{ )4? I,ttl �J'�z_� fro G r1/ �,�� Y� ✓fir- /r/ U�l� -7 loo Cy yyZ ?t4rni C f `�� z �?� _ 4 .) z,?-> � GrG2J J L mac. 4- !i„��-jL r-2 l�� u ;?-7- l� �, J J tr?21 , /; 72 yes— / 7 (A L) //Z.b &112 )22/ Zc � lt�u SLC.C.�LGl?..c'.-2f1t�i �.t L•-�l/ �L�/1'L+✓ ` O� i%G[ €4,47 fit-nu �. Cc.L ��{!; z:4) 2 G ;6a zL� u-z, ,ZifL., 2 z.eoff/ C' Rz Ei� � �nuz e� zu7v j4A.z . i 4.,-2-1 41-7-7 a-L- zJGJ °41t4-17 "14-6-1- 2-1 1 `J" z l P» (lit 7-t yLnt'L✓T2i .�/(1�2�t�r / /L <C C'ns/ "t L/ G}26`4[/ / .t¢/ Cat'+ 4,6 �'J`,� �� ,e,‘UJ /`irJ c7 cam. G6-2 OY/yn�� ear-2 lirJ e:1O G:c/ -Lt�c�caJ �1� G �tJ GG�-y�°c� J — lLr°al?i -h? 7 42/(}_a_ -7u-k zei_i gg ,z-v-, ...,,,i, � ,z-2) 4- et-t,e/ n,-/ /1>u'- /e.tie- Zee t_/ ./4e- ,E ti . -;- . AIL-se- /4A-e. e, dti'e✓ L/ -r�- am/ ,7e; 'ad:i " 4,.- . 4 7'e/ten ury 4e7,2, ,20 J / _ J f cam., CZ - e-� : U ‘-?-/e......) ze..4...,...4 s ''' _ - - ; 7 1 `\ --, -1„r 111.] •,� ,,sin J hudson, Colorado 27 January 1978 Mr. Gary Fortner Director of Planning Services Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Fortner: I recently read an article in the Keene Valley Sun in reference to the issuance of a special use permit to Rolanda Feeds. As n property owner in the town of hudson, this matter is of great concern to me, as I an certain it is to the rest of the residents of tae Hudson-Keenesburg community. I'm certain the members of the Planning Uommission will take into consideration, when reaching a decision as to the issuance of a special use permit to Rolanda Feeds, the wisnes of the hundreds of people in the affected area that have for years had their lives, families and savings invested in the community. It is my belief that the protection of the rignts and well-being of the people in this area should be foremast in the minds of each member of the Commission when reaching a decision on any matter affecting this area. I am opposed in every way to the continued operation of Rolanda Feeds in the hudson-Keenesburg area. The odor associated with the reclamation of poultry waste is particularly offensive, and unlike Ron Stowe who stated the odor was not too strong, I believe it is not a matter of degree but of its mere existence. Tne discomfort of the area residents caused by the odor and the more than likely loss of property value, far overshadow the additional revenue to the area or the 21 new jobs. It is beyond my comprehension how the reclamation of poultry feces for profit, can in any stretch of the imagination, be considered an agricultural operation and not commercial. Rolanda Feeds is a commercial operation by definition (made or done for profit) and not by the raw material it uses. It is easily understandable that to purchase or lease agricultural property for a commercial venture would lower the initial investment and coupled with the readily available raw material (K.L. Smith Enterprises Ltd. ) , would produce the resultant higher profits. On J/ • - 2 - the other side of the ledger, if this venture is allowed to operate in its present location it will be at our expense. I hope, that unlike current trend,, the final result of the action to be taken by the Commission will be an expression of represenative government. Thank you for your time and concern. Sincerely, -1---tt J. R. Howard ) Pte` a L' 1= LUJ ,1' , 1' - 21191 I-76 Hudson, Colorado 80642 January 26, 1978 Director of Planning Services 915 10th St. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention Mr. Gary Fortner: Why do I still have to put up with the smell of burning chicken manure? I wrote the county commissioners and complained about this stench and I got one letter back to pacify me. I notice none of the commissioners live near Rolanda nor do the owners. Last Thursday, January 19, 1978, the wind was just right, I got out of my car and puked before I got to the house. I called the health dept. talking to Mr. Harry Collier. He said Mr. Ron Stoll would be out to take the readings on this smell. As of this date no one has wrote or called to let me know their findings. This isn't the only time its' been here. Every time the wind is out of the East and Rolanda is operating we can except the stench. As you can tell I live approximately 4 miles from Rolanda. The E.P.A. has washed it's hands of Rolanda and it's problems. Also, how was this building built without a building permit? A reply to this letter would be appreciated. Yours truly, f Jim Skiver / , 1/ 25526county Rd. 18 Keenesburg, Colo. 80643 Jan. 26, 1978 Dear Mr. Gary Fortner Directer of Planning Services 915 10th St. Greely, Colo. 80631 Dear Mr. Fortner, I am a student at the Keenesburg Elem. school. Half of the children at my school don't want to go outside because of the Chicken Plant smell. I live about a 16 a mile away from the Chicken Plant and BOY! every night, you could die at young age:'. ! When the Chicken Plant runs in tht afternoon, and when we go to eat lunch the goes right through the windows, and then nobody is hungry anymore. . . STOP THAT PLANTtrrrrtrttttttttrtrtrtttttrtrrrtrrttttttrt "i3 4?3? Yours Truly, O Brian Foss 1( ,�+ .,400 -r,' P.S. I thought you would like it better L`c,'r ,��i��b ' if I typed it. r /� - �6 '' 1 }6,0 ,' , ' , l I 0„ r, 4 / l _.1 1 -61.'-'1 :` 'e l i / ? , BY r=2 ;7 Roce;, •• -----7 I - C1€ t C2 ; ' i , i -IOi t { ) ' V'.1 ; i f`' i _ i l r c c fi , r l l L Li 1i'�1 V l I ✓ 4 i 'J i'�\ ( INT ,./ II mil' - - i t." t rf { t y Z' ell E 4' ,L' @s/ , , u l\ Q 1' { * )' ,-e',' ''. 3+ @ 1 i' _1 C> n , c, fl / n { I .1` d sj',e I c i a ; 5 L> .1 ' !1'1.'. j .I - d 3r 2 �/ s r , r SIa1, CCI' ,_ i Ci V y a,—,? ,, ,l'/ " � y M�� C N `.6511',- . .x* s —;, / Or , - - 1-- , , I / d ( - , Vrl to /^ :� . `. i 7/ j e ' , r if1 f f tk. ! r i 0i - /„ r i� /i • 1 , O i a l , 0 L c -NI / FINIIIMMi- '011117 c( i 147,_ ', I R ( , a /' . , pi I. j C.-'''' l:! . ' ' ' ' / 44 r; (";;I' l' ( ir- ' " ' t1 ' C 0 Cf i 5- P ' : s' ''' j,-1---; 6 i ' . ( ' ( / ,- - . ., .,4,- , - - ---., 0 :„..-4 k " ,' _ _ 1::)(..7 ,„.., , , ., 8, , _v - „- 4 , Ke.. .,: i 1 ,_ -. i:;,, , — I.4," i i, __'- vr.1 1 , t A 'id .-(.)-,.- :,`• , ' f 64". A(/' J -t,, t 1'11 ; 1-, 5 •_,. 1,-; l ' „..J f� ' , "1 .C_ w _. .� ' FS b ,- -Q t f 1 1 ,_ G k [ ci ` r `i, ii �-� 7 ' , 1 - , ,+ 1 1 t .,K r , t/ i / II r) , i ' 11 • , ,.... /u v , ., , _____,, ..:,•, , ,, , . „, ,,.. . ., • , .- i_ • __\ \•, 1 _ '; +�! / 1111.1 67) /J C - 3 / /2/27:17/z.,, -c'/ '/ `� ( L zr_ f �L i {i�LX� // \� iLC'? �.�"✓'l.''-�, �- �"r,..�i4 7iC� =y"L�mil.- L J' � �"�' l.. ? t:4-) 4'.-Iirt. C .i-e.,0, *,) 44.4',"...-,,-, Litt ci,...,67 , '''' :,' , 4a.i..-6. '-2_1"__,..., ,C.Cee-t„, _ . .,../..--_ .11-.:„ :/ .:LLB 6 dIL , . ,"',- I.. 1 y 1 i. .r , , r " ,..,. -`_:•,.4.2_,. r__+:4/ _ t____''' , ,''' °: •-! , (‘-.•et- • `--• ' •••._ ' �0-, • tt 1 1 �Jf/ et a 4 ‘-*'-'- ill, r ,A ltarz .N,_!41 i iti.2..,.. . --- . ,,, t. pe,,,,;:._,,-, ,., i „4-L., _ , 'ter 0 - • ' �•h '� ?'fir -• �1 ? + ' J J , Cf) ) 44in r �' '~J`A t . d s4-5' y� g_‘22....,1(2.: „ei 4,. , =a 4 y1a �' a � k ' : .;;S__./.../PICA.Affi24/ */?..);'1.4...k‘(71 '- • t,,-_(_E .,,ED ,I • - - - - - Weld tom Box 362 Keenesburg, Colorado 8064.3 January 24, 1978 Mr. Gary Fortner, Director of Planning Services for Weld County 915 10th St. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Hr. Fortners I am an Elementary Teacher and concerned citizen of Keenesburg, Colorado. I am writing to complain to you about the terrible smell from the Roland Plant out in this area. It's gotten to the point where it's so bad at times, my students don't even want to go outside to play at recess times because, as they say, "it stinks out tt.ere!" I think that in itself is reason enough to get rid of the smell and/or the plant, leave alone the discomfort it causes when it invades homes, cars, schools, churches, businesses, etc. The other day while walking 30 feet from my car to my front door, this smell cause me to cou,z;h, gag and hold my breath just to make it inside the door! I will agree that the smell is not constant, bat, it is so bad when it's around that it's unfair to -lake this whole community suffer! Please take my letter into serious concern and help do something to stop this pollution problem. Thank you for your time and I hope, your cooperation. Sincerely, //i a �1 Victoria Gnojek, Keenesburg Elementary Teacher January 5, 1978 Weld County Planning Ccmmission Centennial Bldg. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Rolanda Feeds Inc. Gentlemen: I note in today's edition of the Keene Valley Sun that a hearing on Rolanda is tentatively set for January 17th. Keenesburg, and the entire area for miles around, stinks this morning from the stack emission from Rolanda. I do not care what the State Health Department determines, the odor from Rolanda is offensive and detrimental to the general enjoyment of property and life quality in the Keenesburg-Hudson area. If it is not possible for Rolanda to further reduce the stack emissions and odor, then there should be no way that a permit be granted for continued operation. Sincerely, sj,/ Philip G/ Bowles 260 So. ain - P.O. Box 75 Keenesburg, Colo 80643 A ffr Jfti '�: •Z1. • EEC '01 r J ) )�' 7 ;�c.,� la tal- viomCa sso -,,, LZap, .\1"\,,5',-- --e st_______y i.---,-•-. /I.+,\._z_,=,,,_-.._.c__ _±,) c:) .. v �.T � Q, �A 41_54_ ,,L_ Lam—V,g_c__,‘L._,„ _,.,,,_().__ ..,„Q-.,..1-t O _ki._ f A-A.-A.... -.../.1,-eL- .7-Cte,A,- ' - H‘ _ 0--r4u.-- - --)_ ,_Akth__Q 4 ,Q --y,--C s?=k_.11__--vt c _CS ei..-ec tom ‘4.-0__.A...k.A-U-e_'"\_._ Ckk__,TE-O,...t _ 1_ _1^ ' rr \4) ..—LA .,� A Q .,.ck,L..ti.k—C_ __),-N.:2-_\1\k--A-2-,Lf,L*E' ,FT---P,- L-jkl.k..) ItA . a ti's L ✓r -, , __ S-r_..L CcA,_s) 64_,,, , , . ____a_j- jo--ie_l_A_L-,,,-(._ 1./A- t.c 6--t-t._C-.t .,___ t_ - --{-L-'S'`-:Q_-=u &' =C/ - /4-A--1- -- -- 3 �l_ ---s. 1 LA- '(.- ' Lk"- el-L-Lj _ i ‘-C__t_Z .- _(II) -- Z.�L�-�-� !EL_�'a-.O_�Ys_ __ — , 3, / q7 &' 9is- -', •&z-itl) c,c, So 4 3 / C `^'• K t�: Y� z7 �-�'I �rGC �iL-J-e/L•�eil -'�-- Grc'✓�/ 1�l l a4 '.Z. 6 C �Y�K.L2�CC-u .K fLL h,- .✓'�' �/ y =.Qiw r _ s r C.Z1.c-c t z-w 'Ylit.ra. GLl- j;_ .t*L/ 7r�Lcf�v 'f V �_ L _ c.. 71,1.4f-G, -YYo-s.c-- • 2 GL l� .CEO 12e I]f LL% -C."-X- -2,-/ a_.c��i i 4 L:r`...C. GL!e t.'-s-✓1" YrLc•c�C.. G_i -L%� G'L�..+iL�r-C� , )J 1 Cry �2 i-u.G�CL� S&2; L�<:t�2+ Cs.a.�X'xc G: Lt. - rid-&f . IL<tvi VLLC:-t'CL..-E'r-'t-4i� cL-SLR/tom-tL.LL,`1' sll .z4a'-✓ 7'+i�G G'G C l �Y LG-L • �LGtcC - 21LC A' A_-_ �i T > Lt7LZ z- �s/'-[� �-G-�' /p•C!f vw.-�-� f1'Yh.-f�.:w... 7�ttl�c-r .ZlL4J �. eft<- 41- .o47"4"..re�L Z .Gw ls�L C��LL-=,-ti, 0 eV, `-' L.<z ss 7G.f-y ,Gc z x o'lt�..a-�z�a.� �Lu-��-` /�"-`t/'" C"_`"7�` 'J `'-L':cP--C h-.&-d--•a t.1C.11-Q- Zu- ..cJ 7, U -t. , <'__ y L�4�l�u-auto. 'wk_ Z.-LZ y �G'�-v.-�i !v-C.. �,�„z c�� -s ...._-� /�L-i, G w!- _ ..- �6'2�--1-�c ...e-=.•-� .2K/ 6,6-1-0 14-/V ev-y 5 2 7�, - c,, pe 3 Qc,., , „_., ... , , i ,„, , ., . — ir _„ .. n I , 1 . . - k ,,... . , ( ..... (,; - K / tzLettit rn:t' . z.. , coon;:t .../B74, 42, le 1/4 .t,434ItejZ „et,..A.,CL -e1-66(J<CP ,11,6%/;42, -V1L-O`4-1 4/4/' (I'LL -6,1-'1'4- A49-' A4't zdy.t. „f-t),2c/2th -1,r. � ta/v\-) O/O41 , (... 1.45ee 6,:iadAck_ It . .\, _.. .„ ,. _ _:„ .,,,,. \_ :_.s , . _,, . , :__ O : ... _.1., „ _ ,T7 , , , ... - - 4 • N.: ,..�' i ) k IOctober 20, 1977 d ( 21191 1-76 I1 Hudson, Col orndo L;!)rd!;.' 9 ',;:ld County Commissioners ',915 10th Street ' Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Norm Carlson: i I'm writing in regard to his chicken manure factory (Rolando Feeds) . ',7: th the health dept, 'SPA, building codes, and zoning, it looks like we could get it shut down. 'thy do we have to put up with this sr.'ell arld these flies. They are 10 times as bad as normal. The smell and smoke cover the whole valley. Why are we burdened with this stench? I went to enjoy a day of fishing at Banner Lakes and had to come back within a short peroid of time as the odor was so offensive. Do we have to le stibject to this smell, flies, etc. which undoubtly is bad for our health — ji,st so that others make big profits at our expense? A reply to the above questions is appreciated. Yours truly, ,,...„,—.2 JA-t.-,...k) Jim Skiver Hudson, Colorado Aug. 2, 1977 Weld County Planning Commission Greeley, Colorado Dear Council Members; Re: Rolanda Feeds It is obvious that the few of us able to attend the hearing of June 21, 1977 opposing Rolanda Feeds had little influence on any decision. In fact the Rolanda operation has continued to date with no improvement as to either opacity or odor. In the Commission' s anxiety to have the State make a deter- mination we have now attained the epitome of inaction. As of this date no tests have been made to determine whether or not Rolanda is in compliance, other than the tests by Ron Stow, obviously ignored by the Commission for evidence at the first he aring. Please see the attached petitions which will give a general idea of what the "folks" down here feel about Rolanda' s continued operation. Thank you for any consideration that may be shown in this instance. Enclosed you will find two adds and copys of petitions obtained from 728 Concerned Citizens together with notarized affidavets. Sincerely, Concerned Citizens ixn SE Weld County by George E. Shaklee 7627 Weld County Rd. 49 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Phone # 536-4687 I P•lie-a-}1 ; 7Z:g 77 ///fi -r!'22A-J2-- teea- Gr Z 36,O vv "� s7 21 June 1977 Commissioner Leonard Roe Weld County Planning Commission Greely, Colorado 80631 Dear Commissioner Roe; Last minute circumstances beyond my control have prevented me from attending the hearing concerning the dehydrating of chicken manure for cattle feed, I object to the unpleasant situation that has been caused as indicated below: 1. . The odor is both pungent and nauseating. 2. . One party unilaterally creating unpleasant conditions for the majority of people within an approximate 10 mile radius. , 3. . A very dangerous precident is being set br allowing a concern to start an operation without a legal operating permit from the proper authorities. . One important qualification for a legal permit is that the zoning regulations allow the type of business that is to be operated prior to the issuance of a permit. . 4. . Is it safe for our health? Thank you for your consideration of these objections and ,I would appreciate your entering this letter into the minutes of the hearing. Sincere y, j(a'ee �.�2 C'16/& Dorothy garchet Fred W. Sarchet 9243 Weld County Road #41 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 lee 20, 1977 We-2d Couv,ty Cointsi i.,va i oa2 C-teeLey, Co. 0063/ feat uJe would app cec e you4c Con. de-ta .i ovc in the 'a-tteh pollution Zvi 0144 a-ce.a beeaude o t a jac iLi ty that dirya Chicrzerz as uuce a,id 4e-11.4. £t a/J. a pic,oteivt. d.uppLe eezt gLeed,ing, ac2u;sa. 4,. Jhe ob etioca we hwue ova, to the. ex 'ices e.Ly ()He /dive odoic eraZZ.ed t%oF;i r ice, buic.442nc, picoced4.. �e .f ive ap,»coxj;ac-tetii 5 a.-2e... Pcoot .th i4. tae c,P..y, and tierce a-ie t iolea. when. we haue to 4hu't doo/c4. and w-indowa to be coo.joictabte. Jha a. in. tuicn make j. a t a,,u ite un-co ofr t- abt e in. hat weather. The 24, owvied& _op:.ica ted, o/c. ope%a ted by al'ooyd Land o? /cuL /1uda,on, Coloaado. (/out_ covr1.14eicat4iovi oi" F>aakivzs the owvieic col;;p�y with pottat i ovi .i,tanda/cda, would be opczat help to the corn tuvu ty. Jhavtk, youtc covrd,i de a t i ovi, -7; h41, "1/?, cl- ./ - i/c-1-/ _/-//,,,Y ,,y/;;( 6-r,, ,,, / (' , prima 4 �j 3 21 June 1977 Commissioner Leonard Roe Weld County Planning Commission Greely, Colorado 80631 Dear Commissioner Roe; Last minute circumstances beyond my control have prevented me from attending the hearing concerning the dehydrating of chicken manure for cattle feed. I object to the unpleasant situation that has been caused as indicated below: 1. . The odor is both pungent and nauseating. 2. . One party unilaterally creating unpleasant conditions for the majority of people within an approximate 10 mile radius. . 3. . A very dangerous precident is beirg set by allowing a concern to start an operation without a legal operating permit from the proper authorities. . One important qualification for a legal permit is that the zoning regulations allow the type of business that is to be operated prior to the issuance of a permit. . 4. . Is it safe for our health? • Thank you for your consideration of these objections and would appreciate your entering this letter into the minutes of the hearing. Sincerely-, eAe4W- /6„-aWa--1046-/-- Dorothy 'archet Fred W. Sarchet 9243 Weld County Road #41 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 c�-nR-- ,?1, / 979 Gee-- C L t f Q��, .; C' JA,fLoc., . -¢— 21MY4-k-LO aJkAL 6JUZ- bt —ck‘2, L c )u &&)u ) c . X1,0 Lutz bY" yaL,t) J a J xkotit 'D4 ccIe. Coo. . ao . ,FO4 47Z3— • c !) du„ , 2, / 9 ? ? k)eh d C.oU4," y lame, /`Ae c GP � e;2 s f , d') [� / s 11 YLo if Cowr/N I,✓ / , /,v s R1 o1 A-,v d e re ' s / s oic, 74/;v�, �� e /7 //c c1�' /RE /i'eetiseIc / , , /Jv /s A'r C/ , (N e ,/v e /i(° O4J J ec-'//ate 74e) 7/4 F O i ! f / ere/2A11/0A.1,,1/0.✓, //S to.v e f y/1 S 7 / o /i / ) dpO i d e C)vP- #/2. ff we ree1, l �07f /-A Fy $6rat,ic (_ Ioce qo«�� O4. 1rI Svc / /I/4 e- 7/, I /`e 62,./ e e%Z,d e S,� f1 y e , /Mac,/ fpe l ci7 )/- �� e. ic(/ .� e / e0A-, 6L-ie fr AWA.70,r//-1/9/cly /7 4i /./des Na/GM h ,�)f�'/h w��S e") von e 2(// • 1 > 4tL J ' 71) g6 5-y 1 eJ (10e)A44 ,4 , 4 y7 • //vdSaNl Ce,L14% June 20 , 1977 TO: Leonard Roe , County Commissioner 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 CC: Planning CommLssion SUDJ: Rolando Feeds , Inc. , 6509 Weld Co. Rd. 51 , Hudson , CO Dear Commissioner Roe: It is my understanding that the subject enterprise is operating without sanction of the authorities involved. Further , that they are now attempting to secure that authority after the fact. I strongly object to their operation for the following reasons : a. I have personally observed smoke fror their facility that, in fact , caused a deterent to sight covering an area to the north- west exceeding 1?; miles. b. The odor created from their operation at a distance of 2 miles on at least 4 instances in the past two weeks exceeding 6 hours duration made it necessary to vacate the outside of our home and shut the windows in an unsuccessful attempt to escape and reduce the stifeling smell . As a result of the aforementioned conditions , this operation which invades the privacy of both my family and myEelf , must be considered a public nuisance and illegal. Under no circumstances should Rolando Feeds , Inc. be allowed to petition for manufacturing permits until their operation has been approved by Federal , State and County authorities . In addition , they should he required to prove that not only have the standards been complied with but that they can continue to meet these standards in the future; subject to closure. Any assistance you may render will be greatly appreciated and certainly is of benefit to tae community involved. Sincerely, (---- -I ./--T) ALLEN G. ALTER 8465 Weld Co. Rd. 49 Hudson , CO 8C642 7Z-( /) , 9 r17 ' 4-6-0L-a_a _e_e____ 2', re- 6,7 tW., ,6,,,„?Z-f//L LDa1L-71t-t-ki_l.CAsCJ 4e-C-tel- , Cd-ed--La_le--' Ro‘1/ _4.An,•,(1 -J -72,1-e,---6(-. G'.64---A-W4�x); 4 L,., ✓tom- 7Lt ✓7,_,,_'l f _, ,,, , 6c--A/3, ,z f a_1 ,j0-4-6-- e-, -1-?z-- 'V-e--/z_r a.1,--e-61 tle-O-t-' ..thL-- ,7 ,ZZ-O_,t ---t 4-7-2t-e-7&) t-' i _Ap.-62A--4) . 1 GLd.14-,0p_e-ryLi __ _Gilc_, (G a 1-Ld, 9.E e .6 ___iLa,,a___, ,_,01./a.,(1,i14: a-nte- ,-- .674-c-- ,}2--e-h-o-Le-6 itio-e_t_ te6__, ,,e-q-i-j__,i.,, k ,c_v, - ,I.,-tzt- , —5e2c-i-te-6-7_ "---,t_ _titp,._, ..,e4A __6----,6-4 ..,44.,L., ___66/L-Vira--- ,E.4.--1.-.1-1' ..-121-6:17-6.1-- -6,--,-7' _ ..-6,--7:16 .......ka__,L.,/ gie. /2,,ce_.)-a _ 0.1i-e166-cc..)ti a-viA ,--e--e%a ' '[-C'Z..,1 . i'L' --a-- re- /ye&,L) � ,t: A- d--1_- _...-64-, ¢--L-t Ga,,yGGL_ __,67...e1_,t.-e--.Z.e-l_-,` 15---A--E, _-tO-' ,6-1-e_ez±4) --i-AA-61--eVA) ..1-?-4.--- i,,---i. .--/ZzA.,-) --- 3-z-Isi-c-c-dc__; r ,./..7astle..4-) ..,d-467- --‘•xc-i' _.--tkavn_. ,,,yre-- /.--- c-it ile.4---' _A-e-- e__,—/___L_. p_e---,-/...) ,...tILL.) i:2-1-a_.,-6 t. 4 c..,�iti`'L `U � ,=-tom,..t * - -L) .� V .,C� U2 elk- %' !' / 1 -e 6-a-)--6-I. --1. -.2.L,-LL.C.z.� -;L __ A Al-(.Z t.--c,, r C�fi��% .// ' .''� /G�" - 1 --C .- '.1--z1-;- -C--X-G 4'<t_i r A --d-e5--4------- ` ALL--a-Le , 9 _.,G+C-L�--,-e_ de--: 41--ts 29r(-4- 4-4 x et . f;-i2-t - 7e��_ .plc -6-,Y . l - 1--ee:. )c-tt a-t-et-x_, , / '..C'at ' .4_<L2 , L 012 / _ 51ALj 74-6A.)‹. (1'O-Lt F-v2 -77(e X1.O;/cE c;/------ TI/i7 /jrt'E. /L'd— /-v,c #2.c. /.4r,D ,1 . SP.ec2..,4(_ (1.-,i--, r?zakri ;. _t ,/in c.- Li, fl ,-) 46,4hus e_ e_cy..„.,,A.. - A 'r )e"i",.'l>r /i 70 Ee" 3Sc1t/ ae 7Q -7/f C %t k'ae/hl'e' GOO, /�_ N» iT?�-a .-✓A_:J CA, f/,C-- 6E /17 %fft= a t-74-1z.;n6 v ti- 774 62/5 T O :Ye lLZ , `�i A1.1CC__4 A V Ycz re s ei=arc- C!, n f ,��;\31ij81^ ,' JUN 1911 `�'-. oc,co �GS1V `s' e�3n'` ta�twtisst �1 24.963 Weld Co. Rd. 16 Keenosburg,, Colo. June 7, 1977 Dept. of Planning Services- Weld County Centennial Ctr. U id y I 915 10 th St. ._ RE coy 1'E® Greeley,, Colo. Vi®1>9 Coort� 2::. '�, Pia l%commission commiss►on ��V Attn. Kenneth Mc Williams, `,?� ',N., Dear Sir, This is in reply to your notice of hearing on special use permit for Rolanda Feeds, Inc. that is to be located on property adjacent to mine. My sugsestion,which I have talked to two of the partners about, would be to have some kind or gam collecting appratus on the dryer. I think the recycling is a good idea and collection of the gas would further enhance the operation and eliminate odors and crnrt3 esions. ("X17-7-a 7rattµ f 7 r7, c i ; cj -' '-ii at,/ t/v, 4, u'1/ /f» / dIA. -/Le--ri•a Z4:- ed 1 442f----42-• ' ---e-12-00,1 r'-11.e-e-L, ,'frld--e%zuG?.i.,J, -,tA -cu.si� Da ,fi uGG76 /-z ce — tt7 ' -i -1 --1-‘64--iir_e _.1 ez-ai 4-42--z-t-S: -271e-t-,,,..7 Ze'le-k ..-iee - e_c.; ,.t,c,-EL4,,- 6 ' 1--- ,i_p_a_i_f_k afola,,i_exe, 7c5 -aZai ‘/SO i tr-6-0, 6L-z L .2' -tee <e r- 4,- .--c.---- z. G�� :se, 214,1/u, _7.--Zi_e) it-4_,64e-- .e.t.-4.4....e-e_sre..„4„,,xLe___77 „..2----ze__i_e_z_, lec...„6Q _h4. 2;4'-e--74.- s-r-v le-e-1 1-,2-1-)-7-c-, ea-ze ,1 6 d4.-it,A-41 d Cz/.X � .4.2' e.‘ ''' - ) e.,61441 _ tevaili ize,t,7-ke- 46--z-, ,a--4,---4-e-i_.--7-%--e- --c7------- -e-43, bi ,� _' ; ;4 .i.�-/ -114L -4-7-dtfe-7.-z, _--7/4-e, ...0.-e-te24_ ,,i_./ e_...6d-i-,.--e_e_4-/T/ , 2„e 5 2 eL X /6 , /� � s lziez 7Lc ,tin .=11 ---2--1--‘4. - --c�'CG . r.,(.e J2614-et-eit/Z1/1-44t .L. ?Lid:), ,a,,,,_,_,,,..Y-..,,,,,-.., , Ley-e,,, e, 5-2‘-- -/37 Gary Fortner Weld County Planning Director 915 10th St., Greeley Dear Mr. Fortner: This letter concerns the Rolanda Feeds operation. I live near the Weld Central Jr. and Sr. High School and I object to the foul odors that are being emitted by the Rolanda Feeds operation. . My understanding is that this operation was started without the necessary permits or permission and that a rezoning would be required. Doesn't that make this an illegal operation? If they are allowed to continue then I certainly should be able to start a trailer court on my land without your concern or permission. If this operation is allowed to continue without any permits or rezoning why even bother to have a Planning Board or County Commission? There are many areas that are virtually unpopulated where an operation of this type would cause little objection or concern so why should they be allowed to ' continue illegally in a high density area where they are not wanted? I will be unable to attend the June 21st meeting but I want my name added to those that DO NOT want Rolanda Feeds to continue regardless of any or all promises they may make. Please do all in your power to stop this outrageous situation. Thank you. Herbert Pankow 5028 Road 59 Keenesburg, Colo. 80643 911 d) voMit c' �J� " The F,,ad ."-oulu 1:)t ,vt ,:3r�c� ^ic pci,itti z:r 1.J1pir,L; the Eck,`; ctoris contnl1 th,!ir odors. Neither : huuld t_aio o ;: rz_-,.ion be considered ,.J. �ror� tin U bvc 2.,O cC..._. '`r. r s h : 1 `1 o Y? �l /11 c. . �._ _.� �r�on..� '�. .c c;, 1Zc:' .�t; r_.c�y-cZi.._r--; cn�r i, c)r. rec;yelinI', o'-.e c tio1^9^"ouir. be co:1cidercu ovt t<.cir own :iorit Itticroattx if t'.icit .a , . T m, , r t is one, <ic:c;�., .�c�� VC ono c,c;� -.in;; x ��r Tl,. it �:,, chiC'•r:c"' rl Inure from the 4:vans County Cyclo o•)urc-tiol1 11^ c_uitior., Lc t+_iL.t : ':i IIuci..c �� th-.re io :_vic,enoe to intlice -.4 , 't 'r4 r'nure ho i c'cen im-to.rted from C 1.if. hl.rro is ,bccilutoly '?', 'T•I'll fcir th® pruc1 pct 2rociuced 'ay Rat. '-dm f;3 r,. The f%':)^ric: ' r,e ;57 ,r;)(1'Jcta ,, c Yv1 ta.c11 Cc;r .lu 1&i u1 le co.itinue produce " sold ...V �.". cor).t t }mil) .iUr;. „r. 171 �tau"tau" t7 t;Il. r .Lv:'Ei il Z', f;� n l;_i :.1 G. ,� . t _ r:, ...1 1' ;l ].G . • The Li.c'.;ac' 1 . f tho ' . ' otory w' elt0F3 Jcco.mlioheu try norw: the i""ii:; ; ors :Y�i; ,i:ad _ ?4 CZ o. I old. In t'.3 re:. of octaoties x r to tints oper:,tion The :ilccki of wriau of o c , N[ �n�i-i u 1 cL b �� odor , •id ''i, rte u t'l.. Cl'" ircu tar " �^l�' r 1:1f21L7.�� , .i3.i U. ,w Et-.L�-�-ire.-�� ul'"' ro-; ,E with diL,tinotive, odor•^. I w(;uld, not krlowiii ].y u :"t; -o i froi c! Ltie i c e:ricken -rlr.,nure. Gr.c c' ily is-tiff t'r-' • ir „ 'ze ,t Sao e.ioce csuoot .Lro "Laic pi,. •t t, re li :; tb) drv• -"lount o:{' tke,.r.,t1-tion .'j the e-?vi')/rrrmert. 3 l y� le C`1� •_•iirceit! i cy11'..Lyw v I i� 1�J L T1� mil• of etroleura products to dhhydrti-te tie enicken ,:afvnure c Y_d :..n eau: ily L,-r._,o 1)flt 0:? "l. tur"1 'glut;': ()tare i,he fenn,lrirJaf• Arrt_�?1 �`�:t�tf^ ^'i t ro:)l Ce itr cn toot t. the, It Ti_t thra t;® risuF;;' of thJ c iicken .`t ..ure. L: nu u;:: : nd ro 'u,.po.:er ly to ;:rotoct the envicrr ent, ; '^d the hog l th wolf' Vic citizoic .; won . ,'r3)erty v_hit's, _ au cv.:'::t timer. t►tir,;,-' th 'c c:re or thcticvlly uno1e nt •l:rc.; fr•rcod u ,on the pupal.; cc. At ju.;.:1 tico ..re ii.(r cry w, tch-- wor•A", of the .0 n(1 why :,Y.ou1d. more thsn (.., tk,•)us: Titi ;people in. the ivy: odic, o vii ity : 7. 11 cu.7uL tivoly the v,iolt) •tior, ;;hru the u,J _111il,.etion oi: x hc! R envir✓zu,1OU l,c) ;_ Li i\ the -`v rit:c J2 c,;_e;,c; W•.I"IC,: ._ . : (ai'1: t T' trc ;� y `Et? RiC Th' t CirgyrZ Cctr or; ti;frs7-Purin une tilt ;purchri3`r, of the dried Chicken c",ure from Poi., r,dv Fer.ccc-1 01- o Jrc):i u: t.'rom r,ur z'iit,''rr I . •re.er how ny _. . 1 .i ,E;or 4 +- e j ti � ' �t;. t :(- lil �"';. C)I': �11C` '7U1( 1 .Jt I' '��1 T ,1'1 �F' C L'�"' �' "il�, L_t_E,��t_. 2UrC. <74,- Be(:, tl'>:i3 1 1": n, 'ti Ili !VC ui.i.:. el. iris (,l' ; _re"A.+`.'E,i or ' p •'11 n(; odors, „nil r1 .o duo t: the ti,is(ii ty c: "Lsa& /j1, i-i.--,t; iv t• f of '611:1. ho 3 ci_.,;._rt .edt 12 :.l 1,L,t .t' ui_t L u;,• )rye:cit i 'rt ntcc' tiro \dll be :�vv'.:(.a '6u �:l.�.uro thin oant):;i� ui edcu_ '':,rc.er u'1c:•, , i r,1i(��.-co by is ;urci.ivo • „ti L'l i. I v,.iu.'O .':,..'G „ii �i t� i t �.�J' :7 i1i',ti(3_2 bo „t: zee.e �)y �' 7.'� ' ' 3 : to cc' .,c U.j c1():1106 Order.. Z-6/4-CV/,A.,a - Zee itew 2 1-(A-e I - ezY, QV--7 /7 �` c5K'GyL- E , SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LIST SUP-335 Rolanda Feeds Dale and A. L. Overton Robert, Lloyd and Stanley Medsker 5050 South Emporia ' a3�� Englewood, Colorado 801I10- V.\0 %,'"\ Russell D. and Peggy M. Lohr Ratite-1 �q�� J .%\ 9643 Road Y 11 ..y.,\Wdea., Colorado 80G53 John T. Gratton Route 1, Box 257 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Ruben Baumgartner 4866 Weld County Road 67 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Flanigan Land and Cattle Company 1022 Humbolt Denver, Colorado 80218 Russell Hayes 24545 Highway 52 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Bob Fritlzer Box 343 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LIST SUP-335 Rolanda Feeds Dale and A. L. Overton Robert, Lloyd and Stanley Medsker 5050 South Emporia Englewood, Colorado 80110 Russell D. and Peggy M. Lohr Ru u L r.'� a\� 'CL%.s*.s& % 9643 Road Y We- e a, Colorado aes6-3 John T. Grattor_ Route 1, Box 257 • Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Ruben Baumgartner 4866 Weld County Road 67 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 Flanigan Land and Cattle Company 1022 Humbolt Denver, Colorado 80218 Russell Hayes 24545 Highway 52 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Bob Fritlzer Box 343 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 d , r l _ 3. If ( , s ), , S f/ x� , -' - Vv `� i �/ , . , , , /� p 1, , I / ' , r - I A , �A,-, , I As- -- -e. f( /1)„, r )-1-1-(1� � 727/Z-JC-D-7-1.. � 3-6 73C-.);') J-; , if?-4"-- POI 3 Y-3 c2 wiL vv G-2, / e-C4 /4Y /977 e cfZe �}rnc 7CA2 �- 19, 7(NOC{c� ,L a, J ® r "'� 't & // 1?77 0 /Tay (2O1 )6/77 ,/) ct4M 2, (a) Chita dz />tyYt Y/ / ' SOIL CnN S EVATIoN SI.RVI(... Y01 / 1! h StI ant Greeley, Colorado 'i06.il. RE: Soil Survey and Intoipretation Date 04 22 77 JO: Soil Conservation District Att. : Gentlemen: I wish to request your technical assistance to supply mn and the Weld County flan- nine Commission with a boil , site and land inventory interpretation on land which I own located as follows: (Please be specific - show lenal description - attach sketch map, if necessary) . (East of Hudson on Hwy 52, approximately 2 miles, turn north on Road 51 , approximately 2 miles) A tract of land located in the East i1- of the Northeast a of SPM on 31, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P. M., Weld County, State of Colorado_ My intended use of this land for which I require soil information is: Check as applicable. 1 . Mobile home sites X 2. Septic tank : ilter field 3. Honesites d. Animal waste sewage disposal systc'm `�. ('ther I understand that this clil survey and interpretation is inten led to a. si si me in mining kn .wledne of the physical fraiurer, of my soil and does not nnce -sar : ly re- place me-c itn investigation or tests for speci 11 physical hazards and/or desianor constitute any type of official approval or disapproval for a proposed land use. incerely, Rolanda Feeds, Incorporated Name Stanley L. Stolte, President Approved for Technical Assistance 6509 Weld county Road 51 ( if applicable) Address Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 _571 1102 or 536 4748 oupervi sor Phone COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Pollution Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Wastes Inventory DATE: 04 22 77 Livestock Feeding Operations COUNTY: Held Company Name g Address Rolanda Feeds Incorporated 6509 Weld County goad 51, KecnpRhirg, GO- 80613 Type of Operation: Feedlot Dairy Firm OtherBohydration of Agricul— Stockyard Hog Farm total Pro— ducts Average Stock Population (Give daily and monthly changes if any) None N/A Total Stock Pen Area and Capacity N/A None Are Stock Pens Paved? None N/A Method and Frequency of Dispcsal of Manure None N/A Does Method Control Fly Breeding? Yes Is Rodent Control Practiced? Yes Treatment and Disposal of Stock Pen Drainage None N/A Stream or Water Body Receiving Drainage (Name, Distance, and Direction) None N/A Hors is Area Zoned? Agricultural Distance 8 Direction from Nearest Community Seven (7) Miles Southwest Method of Dead Animal Disposal None N/A Prepared by: Rolanda Feeds Incorporated Roland Nuss, Secretary-Treasurer WP-l'l (q-Fi7-4) NA DO'�i' °j��'"--,'i,', 1 ry ...:a,Sri'e.' ")? .1j,"'. r.. a ' '^'.I - -I ,Fn'i- ;"� '""!r,{d, Y.- ,'rJC' _-,•,...i•-t,,,.,„ i.,t`, .y }, .y;, 'ir? r;%7,' ., ,'i, (r,`'',. T. F o } ' ;,'1 ,'CV ,,}r tit: Zy;' ';� .y ' 111 FM, '(Rey:):,, ,.'jrr•',,,' ,.'r ' STATE 'OF (0LORAD( ,, 1►,„, gr1 •'` „ ,' .,i DIVISION OF WA'T'ER RESOURC,�:. '� 'i'''', 'a Lia L5 O O'''' „.,„ " ,OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER „: , " '` •_� 4 1 : ',JANc4 .")989 ' tam.. • •''- , GROUNThWATER SECTION .;F;' ;;` • /�}� ex ;' •,GROUND. �[�� fl ° _1 K �, ,; �f" � ��°r�r,, °r ; ., r • _,z., ,., WATER.V,rC.YL' 'a • t70us :?;,', r:':k'1'4:L'4.7..' ;: ll'',LOG,AND HISTORY OF WELL ;rv'',,?,� ,., ..,^ �,:'' COLORADO�{;, �?1 '' entered t .;:.,;(,;,,-,."',,,I1-_,' -''' ,,'"',' a , r.'',PERMIT•YNO. 1 822 ' ".r,;'�,'.; 'j:� �TATE,ENGINEER-'" sc .1 C8Ie1 {�.� ,.. .;,,,,i..--1,t, .,: - 'S._'}..' `i 'O -Lic.‘,',%4 '''', 1.•5�+�, i- JH..H`'•,fi• i 1�''''•' Lr-Y4.ti''"r' i` • -t`',•;F, '., riled,',by 1. 'HOLDEN~& HOLDEN r No:',,41: , , t" ' WELL LOCATION • '': , „ ','; t r: rp'A "A,,t` a' t 5,• ;r i1r 3. • '*S. , .1 i', ' t;.'�,, '' 4'3 �,,, , '' 1'' fi•i S+�f, ! ;l t. +r 1• 1 ,A��iAi'44. �Nn,'•"e''+^•3,.�' , .S 1 '',, '''1.- Owner ' V. J DUNTON .� WA =';' lv ' County, - l� ''.''lAddress .Midland Savings Bldg, Denver' ' , • ' SE 4 of SE ,—�,of Sect.._, �: 41, - !f j' • .-----. ? ' ..1' ;'1 1 , - r1jrFf' '�,. r.f, }I:� 4 ' {r ,' ,{=. •„Tenant ' Henry Hills ten ;,::_ ,Twp• 2N ,.Rge ; 614Wc.','�PM; -,;i ' 'Used for " domestic ,t - LOCATE WELL YACCURATELYr ,'" ''',`" ' 'r''''-z,^,`,t. • •,,t,,.s,,; , ,,5 • IN THE SMALL',';SQUARES,: -�otn';orz_.,by,,,.�.. }same u- ... _ - `,. z- ,.----•'-• .,PRESENTINGl�40'-ACRES ;•- .� ., °� (description of site or -land) N' ' `' ',, V . , Date. Started November 9 ' ' , ;19_ 9 'y: .'• 1' . �- „i.,' r ,f''`'.1%.y, , Date Completed November 12 , 19_59 ,,. I c .r'' ti'-.I;c',r,,;:7� 'y'' ' Fr1• 1_ `,f,i, Date Tested ' November 12 -19 9 :, - - -T•.—,+- --:'�_ ., _t i_, • ' !1 •• ,� 1'f, , '1r' N- „� - 5,'•t '' •.;;;•�:h7,-- ,;- .Yield . 15 gpm• • , cfs , w T* '� I -,,, ,,:•:' '1 ''' • '! :• ; ' Pump type Submersible' �Outlet'Size 1�.` ' .-_,,,-/.' `' 'r_, :,.„ ,-';'' Driven'by` 14 ' ' HP@RPM 3L. ;'^. • �----� —� l�ru _ � , . , -' 4 i I Depth to-Water 2 5 Ft.i Draw down 3�7 Ft.,- 1,..-'41.,, `-�-r'-Depth to "Inlet ,'. Ft.; Bowl " -;' Ft, 1.V I^''I Size}and'Kind'of.Casing:`'c" N ' g,., ` ,s If the above is, not' applicable ., _ ...4" K ` ,.._ • : 6,5/8n,.OD :r , C'; = ;}s, fill in: r,', �',:',1-. ' , '1 , ;,From 0 " - to 62.5' Type std w1Wt.• 19 lb ,, • •� R `. 'D Af _ ; ' ' ;�, ,, -4, ' ..:•} ' '4,t T' Town.or,Subdivision: - - .,w„� =From~u w- -� .�_ ,� From 615 to 802 Typ td W�Nt•.,i5 lbs ' ;5 k•-,..,;" }' Street Address or Lot &,`Block , i� : r" Perforations: Size and Type '�•x " '`: y _,;r.,` +• If;1 ,;`,: ';i+ From � t x.E.exxT tt� x tax r + •• Ground elevation • _ ; ' :• n,';(if,known) �, ,, ,..-',.- 12-,111 ,, From 736 to 802 Typeelotte9 a 1/8n '_'- How _ '1 s `t. tF *c•' ' -' ` Drilled •,r- ., , ',fi .."0 - `'' , A. -U- o' ' t`,7 t` r - ," il, �, --- 'S- t - ,:, f,- •r ',;., s From to Type i Size - -r� a -,• ' , }'r,_;'.` ,= Well•description:::r: Total 'Depth • 802 Ft. ' •• '�, ' .`'!' :,,'',i ,� 1 t r ; R E M A R K S4i :` : .•.' ';.:T` - a. •,v,.. �,-•; "•:v (from 0 to 625' _�� 8 3/L�n in. ; '.,, . �`. T. Y,k; `�4•'-;'i,4 'Hole, _( .�.,''s` �,., - • t • Cementing, Packing, .Type'of , :,,,t,,,'0,.,,, (from 625 to 802 r ,: 5 7/8 in. • " ' Shut-off, Depth to Shut-off, etc'.,', .,•,;,.." • , , 3' Diam ,, PUT LOG OF WELL,;ON.•RE-�' i :t;. s •,}";\,I ; ,r" (from to ' ,'S `� is•;• in. , -,,,,:• VERSE SIDE - -,':• . '�•.t.''.,w.,.-,_ s ; 'mot :,, <,,, r,•' CAmAntAA ?, i• i'i'•''•'',,•, TO BE .MADE OUT IN;QUADRUPLICATE: Original Blue and Duplicate Greenyto, r', ' •rt,,t IS��ii, .�. .A; •-'-`State''Engineer's'Office, ''White copy 'to Owner, and Yellow copy to Driller' . 'w..,,-4.:'....._.....r.-�,"''' - - K. • - , N LL 11 4 s .Jeri, + • i * �. • • .i''`` • . 1 kh ., . 1' 1 ' LOG 'nOF ;WELL ' {( n. ' -)" (ADD, SRACES AS NEEDED) From 0 ft. to 1S ft. °icy r 1, ,T,'''.. . - 40 2. anal 19 ft. to r 30 ft. Wt°o 0?111sr - ;• . ' r9 ft. 'to, 710 ft. ;etino •r r v ,D. 1- -, . , ', ... , - ' - ti!"a' molt .c7.,' ft. to 15''3 ft. chnl0 I. ; s ' ;. 16), moots 16% ft. to 17°1 . ft. c!e3tn , ;-1 • - ,. , , —L 7'p iy - r-co • ' 1.4R. ?07 1bae►_'~ rhn1n - - Ce") - "1 X:.S chalo r. . . • ' - !450 , coal. ►dirt; 452 root.: . • CO c! olo n; ' t.----' ) 1!,rJ moll • ,i .- 1,5Vt) 5111, Grey oholo 5hg 5'1v candy o n10 n, ;r ' �n'3 [`�'dl , r1.101' �▪ g �31 cant '-�= 1 f "6'.-Ti 5 7? Off c! 10 , -5'n' .i- • ODOS - [*'VC 551 ahc o ' (C--- 56'14o c e1 -\1 570 , •c'�alqo )t▪om- ��.Z . OcII9 ' 600'1. C�,,; rcctt •r r '' . 1. • ' C�;5' 611 coal ,• 611 61.; root _ - ` - -- ' C"6 t.-._"!.5 brawn c tcao..•. • -, .,-.:r:1'.'-- . :-_ r . C► [' 6,"%? roc!! t7 650 cool c .-. „ ,_ . 6 Gt'0 bitto af^.olo C C 641. stets , . C51 - I'. `'C.)6? cool • 667 671 nolo _ . 671 672 z'coL 6 74 U'i cent1 V . . - 6e,0 691 chol.o _., ., ' •691 6S6 •cool u9u • 711 candy oholo - r� 7l.7:)a1r;, :,t^) 715 t+c:ts -O 6t12 • ' otmlo ' - I y • C (n C a 0 o w G b c •� 0 D. - Y ,_- v,1 4 C H G it �. P o y w -I ' H x - pi ,.c it b CD Cl) '1 C ►s U .. v t�J �' co o M �'. -, w Pte'. O Ib coo r y r o sp n " r ° O- ,'1, I c,• H as, C 4 t-fi ti€`ru P + p... ,.,. 1•i• • C cn ¢+ ',..i.,7-.1)v,•:;-7.,--,'..'''""`,z,,,.., �•'b A �, ›. O 0 w • • oil w .o n , . m H Q Cr)CD \ c o 0 o , ,� a o .`• ` C up '-4' G 1 , o .,, O O O O 5-''. C1 l'ri•OCrq C )--I � y e a � cD cn zo w t co z H it ,,, I=' co , � � H Dm 'N ',r v (D o tl ,ti ✓ J b Q i - 1ti (Do 't > ti 0 CL II >- > n 4fl i Izl 11' iF r, c•r ( Q D (� (� r-+ �• „", C:' CD r1 e�+. ',D .a;A..',rY rs.,-„%=1+,...=.v«:,w"_-..�.,,,:...`?�r; b U) , on — 1 -- r a) Q I •- d -� , '` y I 1 H CD tI CD @@ , . , , p (D C!] 1 z O r1 0 y P % " G i I U) _ �1n E r, -. �_ {�." -. I G 0 Cl" `• ,'� H I ._ '.,a.7,'"— "'�', w ";- ti (D I 1 O H tr1 O I 1 CT •a k CD Cl) t=i -. nl':'''''' "`�s •\• ... o P w t-' t' -• ,•, •-* � �,.--. ' Z '`. O P Cl) U) an - O gyp-' 0 0 Z Q H L:+�nr.• .b..r':..r •eyr''-'", CD O CD '1 C) e-,- UI P3 (D ••1 C7 (D 1 '�;., r En y CD , 7•x"•••:, ..4 ri '• ,.-.A7:1. i ' :N . • f. -�,• y r ,' •t ,.: . r.arondo:odamr e.....,.�... ,,,,':',...1 •.,; - ' Oro — c`'�53''.S�ch'. rZ—•-`.i Tf5 � ., -'''_Yt ��x.•.t• ,,,t,,;4. �� '^...`7,r -'�, ,...s,... r `+h A .J- ` —'"R'�- r, t t' _ ' _ _ -. ,.1"'; err'•rt1;;3i_ '�Xtli. "- ,�w• '- 4:1044,' +• '''�n,.n' ,-..,4 y.1°01v7� :� � - -7-41-"4-1. nom es` ,, •' . N . ;" ..gyp { au,• • ',� ,,• .,�r�".4,'-*At''�,d i�ti. ptwr - „"�' "°{-<1., G` i t i.,:- . 4 4111" • . Q.'0" "'I fA SW Q r-, 0Tn) ,i WW • ® 1) s s( ;.'r- .It 4 CT F ' rp C) .3 i t t . �i h M Imo, r� f s I 'Alr• i L 1t.( ,� ,D I---• 'P' W c) ON C, I I,. k.0•J ti t U -" , Z.' I W � •7 '—s 1) cD '?) 1 fl pr J • o , (T 6...q W ] '3 ! kf 3 , i CD CD 0 r cn - •-y C) ti* $' 4, ' 1 X a u O r „�j O _) r 0 j 'I, �, cn • t -7 J -j co r el 'el , �f. • .-.-1 .il i 4' (', CD r .) i J /i 1,• ° ' ' r '"--. '1:1 A - 3 '` I ^- ' I—' ' L' , I \-L i' N J ) I ' ' --NJ T F -P._, 0 V-1 J yr , - 1 'rj 1 —.• i s: I[� i r' ci- r-' •,] .7 F"-1 `-1 J ' . F_+• r--' 31\) (.7 C) C) U r r , co I N) r3' :3 i — fn :-' Cl] + f , ;• x n) "17 'V "'rJ, v - cY Cl. re. ; s • r' x - JT TC _ -� O -i �. fi J- , , '. =r. .'; J •-7 I 1 I '-d ,I cD ,d ` `.L+� r--. C_--1 .) • ) ry`r ys, 3 ,,-7 CD 0 'TJ I tie k Cn'4 N -.) 7� r;, C) Z 1 ) �-'• .; 'CS 4) C CD -1 r co • k,' - 4. r y ,; - b D i, , '- 3 'U ',' .Ci , - , Y' •-'s f ,,) , ,a 11 i 1) Cr,' �r „,+w , n If »,. , 'e .• A.,} 4+.y. a., .c.,” r 3,, :;E'Wk`s ,w, ,++ q'l. r 7-•w7•.,w..,r �'F' !! .'4iS p'" ret vi C . ' • • 1• • * _ _ r r 4 �r I", ',., #' n ..b a 0 8 1 ,.._ ss •.. Amon ism — •— 0 e o p _ a e v ems. — I r9 I I 8 a a @ a a b IS a 1 7 I 3 ( E • l IJ Hi H. 3, C cjr' J �W, o a r !\: T o .Z? 1 ct - •R F-'VZ ..-N - ,, •1 (), 0 f (. CD D » _ _ ,_ Q. N' ' ,r t I -'-c - u', \v-t -- s (D (U \ • u� » J V.�� '0 -1— o - i LJ v F7. # ,n �• OIL• J _ I _;._ ''S '3 0 (: » L,r, '71 i CD 1, • I—, ;S cr N -j---.1 l'I 4 ' .J-t 0 •..p 1-J 1-' �I . 0_, f\)l.)1 -!-' rl ct _.. ' N Nan, V - 4 .rti, ...'fti, F-. .,'r, n r. . I s 'iirc- I. 1'1' [Some of the ter=s use, text for aeflni:icna�sr't• t k • . Absence of an rot :e,.rsM,1.. .- - v Scil name and I Septic tank goua cap symbol I absorption areace s :'1:f*.sp alide _� _ I fields � yir; 1, ? Slight Severe: Severet fir, ' Altvan seepage. aoep�Ko. i 31: Aquolls Severe: Severe: Severe: sera . floods, floods, floods . Lelnoee, wetness. wetness. wetness. v :.quests Severe: Severe: Severe: Severe: ir floods, floods, floods, wetness. ,.,- wa. wetness. wetness. wetness. 4': I Aquolls (Severe: Severe: Severe: Poor: IPo;r: I floods, floods, floods, wetness. I wetness. I ,et Ie s3. wetness. wetness. I - AGsrpts :Severe: Severe: Severe: Poor: IFoor: I floods, floods, floods, wetness. I wetness. j wetness. wetness. wetness. 5, I llg t Severe: Severe: Severe: Good. Ascalon j seepage. seepage. seepage. 7 iSlight ,Severe: Severe: Severe: Good. Ascalon I slope, seepage, seepage. I seepage. o, 9 - seepage. 'Sligh� Severe: Severe: Severe: Good. Ascalon , seepage. seepage. O10 Severe: Severe: Severe: Severe: Fair: anx�r� floods. , floods, floods, floods. too sand a seepage. seepage. 11, 12 Slight (Severe: Severe: Severe: Good. T• resser j seepage. seepage. seepage. 13 tioderae: Severe: Severe: Severe: Poor: G�ses�o s=ope. slope, seepage, seepage. small at seepage, small stones. I 14, 15, lb Slight Moderate: Slight Slight Good. Colby seepage. 17 Slight Severe: Slight Slight Good. - 10: Colby Slight Severe: Slight Slight Good. slope. 1 Acena Moderate: Moderate: Slight Slight Good. peres slowly. seepage, slope. 19 Moderate: Severe: Moderate: Moderate: Good. Colombo floods, floods. floods. floods. 20 Slight Moderate: Slight Slight Good. Colombo slope, seepage. See footnote at end of table. (1 I 1 - — - - -- ------ - -/17:1 -70 r\-----' ' ' . ..:,?,,,, ::,.. .1 . -,, . ,.. _ ,,? ....,...... ....,,,,, , ...7.,.. , . ...,,, ,,,. .,: .._,, _________„ r, \ ''y -. Hr. +-� - i y0-G (e 'I r'r�l '. •A, j. .: ..„ • ji , rr _ .✓: lam- r, - 1 'N r' 'it,.I, . , , >\,.., . . .. ---:::-,•t,,......:1.... jil. `r-<� ►, ,' i'' - , 4 • n0�` i i .,;1.,,,,L,,44"1\:,:' y_ _SAT r� sp = a r' _r4 • .;N �� , E_�` a *�_ti ,r ; if\ j -...‘A. ___„,,,--,-.-------_ '�� ..-,„...----/ - ,, ..i_-_4.*„.. , , ....> -i ,.._ / O i-- ,,- •::,,;4..1-Z?.‘ r _r'," a — r'+•_ - - - �` `tea 27 — f"` t\•,\ . - .---.:1-7‘47'-'11 -'.--4... Niss <, ' `7,,-. r. sue y.1 •a ' - y� h w ,!Z" T .1' d I y s' V � •- -1; 'i. ....--- \- �✓" r /• . Ili,'; / . a`', �1 rte-i"�^ -t\i't, ,, 4 _ '-4 ':.-, 1 ('Ili: ' -:)-• • -;,\ 4‘\-.7..,.\'':'1::1,:4. *--• , : .--t- - /�, - ' $' [[99 _ 30-8 _ t " 9PV: . y Al_:„.(,.... 5' 7..t :4- , ' ,,' ; _ • ;li " ,• -i78 ,{ r,4 4o-B s E ‘j t? 5.- I r',;,,t0'4,' ' w" I 1 _ r \`\ 1-�N- ,�.,Q ;'1 5 •� ro ) r— �., k N 4>' T1 i ,.} ,, `�_ �zr ,fir. !'�f'- �` �_ `- — 4 ~ .` '- a ,�E `^Vie I I- 7i. ; ,e. a _ __ ; _ 1 s `+ X0982 if 44 ti 4.'i. --.\ --,-.-s, •?4,1%.- ' I. - ,,.'4.-1; -..:' \t1/4.',...1 - _.t. ''' - .j. . N. 7.,1P • .b... Hi5C-PO- USDA-SCS ADVANCE COPY-SUBJECT TO CHANGEy• � r if: c,a:-zo 0 f �� _ a , v4 ''^ - . WELD CO S S, COLORADO 2.-,/ -8 CL 25- _ _O_ FEti ,y 7(0 I. }. i1 V • ' G CO • G N ; r. • 1 • _ 03 G ca N 0 C) C N G m 4.10 0 u u • "1 GO u ca .. CI F . 0 • , t e T )N- G CO CO 0 T 0 F "-1 m u .L. 3 4- 0 ..� O H Cl. U 3 co. .0 L 7 al 0 O N CO 0 G p '� J 1. (-4 A 0 3+ .0 0 N 0 w U a C . a 0 r-) V ... 0 0 0 .0 u .40. E • - ..g CJ 0 3 0 -0 -p 0 C G u P. 0 .a a > u 0. 0 0 .Li 00 CO 7 w -0 0 a $ 0 W .. -Oi U W - r♦ 0 U N \ ca a u .i 4, 01 b t. ar d a 7 J ClI 3 a a 1.4 o m 0 L a -.. C a -ai --' F .G A 0 CO u .7 w a N Ca C) G N CO w C 1. •' J U CO Cl a u 3 E m CO 1. vF1 0 IU. 14 u G •Gj yC) N u s. a.+ O 7 -... 0) p 4-' � N 'UO C) .UG > 0 rt w F C. U r-1 £ L U 0 a U a p m w F 3 0 q a C a 01 1. 3 £ a U CO 1. a -> C7 C .-) a 3 m U U U Cl r♦ m CO .,0 T 3 0 -•C U M W .0 •r1 .0 0. N a 0-4 '0 b 1. a 7 .a 1. C a.1 3 7 w C) C 3 •N CO u la > ca 44w CO C u a 'C) 0 a.) u .--1 C) a • .. G .d 1. .0 a .. 3 u �/ U .) N G [ a 0 4- O 0 £ G ,O-4 N yaj o T .0 m CO '� .pi u a :J t- 1' W 11.) £ Ci CJ 3 0 -,N-1 C) 0. rU. .0 03 u an u C) 14 [7n ,i aJ - O C) .0 0 N L 3 OO .O ..) a G CO "m1 to .1 CO P r. r. E p oO a ,+ > 3 CO 1. 3 • :U.1 b P. r+ 0 4 �, QH) C G .-I 14 ra CO a co X b L 3 U CD an N a L co F .) 0 a 0 .O a b N a E a 1+ F U u o w '� 0 0 co 0 3 0 Ci S4 a 7 CO a G ,C) u 3 .C) 14£ 1. 0 a 0 a r. _,.i .J • w C 0 0 m I .t CO U 0 r"1 O 0 y) m 7 co .-1 coCO U b -.4 0 G 'C r0i 0 U L 1. a Cl N £ W 163 T3 F 3 U 13 0 U .-1 0 7 'd ..) 1, 7 Cl F a w U U .F r~ ) > C) L G 43 U C) a L CO U F U v CO -.-1 3.CO7 3 N b .0 U CO .0 G a) U 44 a C) u 0 d ` CO 0.1 SJ i) w N N C) U > U t. 11 N p N .0 .0 U u U U r+ 4.3 C 0 m w u G 0 ate.) 0 ca 0 E aU .L-. b C) 0 0 4- Y U .O O 0 £ a 10+ U 7 -.0. U 1. -0 `.>1 '.4 ,.4 N C) a 1. ,O • r. a a N N C) a a u .J r-1 u P. .O ENO m •0 O m .1 7 0 1. .0 ca m C) • 7 '0 •• N CO co -.i U o C „a� P. CO ai F a .0 CO 7 40 14 0 C) 0 u 0 a ... L a` L -r0 ...1 a r1 F CO a t. P CO ,.. P O N t. CO • u C a 3 r1 U .4 t• w 7 u .0 0 .� 0 w C -. N CO E U P a CD 0 L) • a 0 a -I 3 N -v-i i.. 0 U 1. i u p F •-1 P. Ci 0 u 0. U 0. rr u .33 '.7 L 0 1. CO L 0. '0 00) y y •.a. 0 0 a CO N £ r-1 ..) .0 CO 0 co 0 0 a .. U 7 r( 0 a .' O .. ca U COa O G 0 G G r. 1. N C) 8 j, a C -.0. U 0 m 1. .4 -0 -.£-1 a a 0 U ra C) P. 1. 0 G 0 C) G 3, . co Ci G .d y 0 F T U 73 4.1 44 0 0 u 0 G U a G '0 U 1. 0 0 H 0 0 F 0 6 co g -A ul W .� -0 -a -ci .0 H a N u .^V-) 10. C�1 E+• a x ) — co • G 1 61 0 V T P 4. 0,1 3 1. T .y N U .-4F• 1 J7 0 0 a .0 F L U 1. 0 u A .C) 0 C) +-) U 0 7 0 1Ci U al i, N L1 a r. C N 0 1. .--1 U 11 w b a C) U C U 0 a. 0 .0 .-1 I.C U C. .G b C. '. 0. Y U � a U .'J � � r-. U 0 +) U W 0 CJ 0 i 0 > 0 a .'P T •0 £ • 'b U •0 CC G U co C CO u .-1 t• .. .C .'i F C U G U N a a U P CO 0. G U U 0 C G • > 4 3 t 0 -r. J-) O 0 U '"1 r. Ed 0 CO T. L t. U 50. -0 a -0 44 7:1 ll 14 -1 co N a) 0 .0 U U .O o u co O .-Ti P. e T "1 '� a > y E Cl 1- 7 +1 v1 iJ 0 0 a 0 '4- l.) W 0 a 1- 7 7 1+'1 C Ir1-4 „ •.1 •r1 a W 1£a 0. a m u 4- .-i w A 14 u P. u G Ll r00 T .N. .0 0 0 co 7 I-4 Cl L) T a 17. 1-1 1. •O a CON P. ra U ;� ..... u .-1 0. A - 0 0.1 a > 0 U rl 1a. > •Yll • ai Cl 6 0 0 I' • +' 3 u ' CD 1. 0 N +� N 0 r1 N N 0 7 ,O CO G to r-4 0. 0 N C) 7 -0 0.0 U .0 3 U 'al al C. Oco CC. 0 £ a) al al.-I 7 0 ''F'1 p al )0 0L. .0 0 T U U U L 3. a .n rC. O .O .0 .-) 0 C H ' a) N H u 'd 0. N a '.•1 £ ,•. m C) 0 a '++ 6 a .43 a C) • Ci 0 ri .•1 7 0 0 O d 0 .-. M O O 11 UU ..-I .J al ~ Cl 44 0 u 0 7 P 3• y al r~ X r. m 3 a. 0 -) 0 w 00 u Cl s m H vC 0. -O al• � 0. .aC ) •O 0 1. 0 P. rl ..-1 U F 11 0 C) U P 0 0 0 P 0 p r0/ N N .p a a F U .C) E aJ 0 0 a p. 13 y y 1. -r1 u O t) . .a -.. o %I U .. a m O CO �7 0 el r1 a U b 0 0 a a 8 • r. C C N CO •.0-1 0 0 F O �O 44 0 N 1. O O •.+ .. 0 Cl) L CO 1. .C •v-1 N W tg m .0 • 7 C .-1 K C. a 7 .-1 . 7 i+ N co a co ""1 ti G r0) co ul w G 0 '0 ..4 L CO N .x•1 a ) .•1 r• 'O co .d n 0 -0 a a .. .L.) U CC "d .... M U U 4, .. 0 O C 3 m .-1 M 0 CO L U a i+ > 0 .. 0 a L C) 0 W 0 61 7 a N 0. 0 .-I ) a. '..1 •0) N a al › ..1 U C t7 0 a aHC -.. 4•. 0 'O r. N 0 0 T u ri al a al O U G m 0. 0 r. 'd .-1 n N C ..F.1 a t b 'O C a .0 "� U i a 0 0) Y @ 0 0 a CC 0 y) 1.. 00 rd q1 +1 1. d N .0 m m ' N .m. ..0.1 j a) �L U �' `•1 3 al 0 ca as 0 .O '.d Y 1@. 0 N al O >a. .acl 3 I33I . 4 �.1 a P G u N X CU C .0 0El a Pa. N F .0 U F a H .0 > u 7 H .•1 H • .. al a 2 13 0 _>.1 ..1 CO L y 4 ..Ca L CO m 3 3 ' • U - - .-1 ..-1 .H U 0 4 10 0 0 0 m H H 0 H w u H Y L m • y. L -.I 4/ Y-1 0) F 4 0 eD 4 7' u 3 a) 0 w U F b m w a u .' 03 40 4 .0 H 00 m [+] a m H H CO L .-1 U. I.. .-' 4 L a U 4 a) H 0 r1 W V Cl m r+ m • - v .+ F 7 • O 0 H a m la .i u m a -T F C)) 00 0 a) 0 3 'a 03 w ° 0 ClF m 1a H a r-1 H 0 CO 0 't3 u - 0 U H • 3+ -0 G - H 4 Cl 4 ) -O 7 CO T. .0 a -.4 0) w .C d b h• 7. C 3 . co a ..1 .-i r1 N Li 4 44 E 0. U .-I 3. T. W L m to .-1 .G -.1 0 0. C3 a) F Y W W 4 7 • 0 u CO L 0 4 a C. 3 L r1 0 0 L 0 H 4 O 4 .-1 E 3 0 -.-1 U a 0 • 0) H L H O -.4 H 0 m r1 3 4 7 m 0. H 7 •.+ 01 L q J 0) C H ++ CL H C. 4 +Oca a a CO .-1 .G 0) u Cl) F1 G 4 4o CO u o R -1 v F 4 Es -.-I u u CO a, a +-, L •O .-1 a) m .4 W H CO H a) P. a) o L 'o .-I H -.-1 0) W a m CO 'o b H 4 o -J q 0 >. u - L L 3+ 3 C G G 4 •o L -4 uX .-I 4 L .v 4 4 7 0 0 Cl) CO 0 4 Cl 1.4 CS to H -.a F R. m u `'1 y4, a) 0 no E .u1 u 3 00 G L 4 CO 00 m H 0 w r1 .:L 00 L m .-4+ • 9. 0 0 •-,WI N a P .1 7 u r1 0 H G E a a1 .--+ • as 4 al H - .. L 0 01 4 ++ m 4 4 H G 4 w CO G .0 .. o r1 m m ° .T .L —°I E .-I E 0E .a o 4 0 .4e CO m Cl) m H C) 4 4 E 4 H R. 'd o E Cl .+ v r 4 0 » H 0 W E U .+ • 4C L -u L 0 H b r1 4 0 u r1 0 C u 0 m a) H G CO 0 U •+ CO L m o a 0 3 a) 7 )— •-I >, m Cl) 4 • -1 4 31 H m 4 4.4 L - r-4 aJ F L m 0 to 0. 01 Cl E H 0 4 4 .-+ a) 7 m u L u C ..-1 0 E H 0 '0 CO CI 0. 0 a) 4 0 0 4 L r+ H G L o n L H a) 0. .0 F 'o H -•-1 L a) 4 .d 0 O •+ ..7 ++ 4 u 7 4 u a a) .0 00 4 H r1 r1 0 4 a 4 -o 0 -0 -•+ E 3 '.1 •"I T Cl) 0 7 b W a) E -.+ 0 .0 a) - )+ m o > 4 G 3 L Cl H ,G 4 •t3 E L m H H G 0) .-I 7 H 0 0 G m .-1 L -.1 H a) .> U -- 0 .-4 a) CO .-1 aO COM CO-.+ -.1 CON W W F b .1 a .0 F > L G 4 C u .' L C1 d1 W L O m .0 0 •O • 4 H .0 U .Y .-1 F G i 0 E L 0. .--I M H m Cl H CO a) E 'o W .-4 .1 L -.4 Cl 4 F -.71 r1 C) - CO -0 L 0 H CO a 4 0 • —I T. F E L •o .-4 '0 m .-4 00 O 0. W 01 1 4 C E '0 4 .-1 Li CO P. Cl) -.-1 .-1 -.+ 3 F co N 4 C, 0 01 m 7 0 E .-C 0 C) E .d 00 0 m L -U -0 '-1 N .. G .4 •o to 4 0) -1 .0 4 G b 0 Cl 4 Cl .-1 H E I -.1 H .. E 10 ..-1 .O • .4 3 0 4 ay C) ..-1 . T 4 L)C ' L 4 co G r+ 0 L '0 •-1 0". ., a .. U E d 0 CO G H 0 N -.1 H .-I .+ H G ++ .0 CO .-+ a 0 T a -4 0 4 0) 0 0 ..CC 0 .--1 U •.41 IN 3 00 H > 4 - Cl) H •+ u L m p. H F H u < 3 ) -- u 00 G Li G ...I C b .0) u U u a a) u o H a m L 4 . 'O 0 La 0. 0 V t0 Cl) al .0 G > H 'C a) -.4 +1 0. Cl .0 H --4 a) C. t m V m G. I .--I o .0 7 >. u Cl 0 .. La •--I H F H L .0 4 m 4 xC .0 C. 140 C 4-1 CI H tO a GI CO G. -.+ • H .-1 m ✓1 E -4 N O 0 E --+ m C3' F H H m U 00 -.+ T) 0 H H 41 .-I 0 •o -'-1 m 4 C r+ 4 4 ri G E 0 o H 0 00 CO •0 CO M 4 w t M -p L a I 3 G q m - 0 4 to C 03 r+ .-1 al Q) O 0 C a. 4+ H L L .0 u •+ w H --1 .-1 . L --1 -0 O -.-1 CO m U U • G G ).1 U .0 0 .-I 0 N N 4 m m H 0 w a a a aa) E CO L 7 N CO 01 4 4 44 }1 'o a .0 • E m- N H - H E U m 0 0 U N O •O G 0 CO R. -.-I 1Fo m O. 0 E m .4+ .Oi .4-I o 1 G x 0 m .0 m a V r L w m 4 L E m E 1 U m 4 .-1 H 4O CO COCl1 01 ) . 0 a % 3 3 .•1 a) Cl) r4 0 Cl L C) 0 1+ L > M w COc. 0 0 -.4 I I O CO 03 Ca m -.4 m 01 U R. 0 .O G .. 4 3.. 0 14.. F 1 0 0 4 0 b). 0 00 G. 00 00 L .0 C.) U < • I I The pr,nted port,un}.,r t-ii' Eor'n .,,prDv,1 by [ie li Color3d.) ::•-,i 1:.,tate C0.nm,-n,,a (,L.1-:-:'' AND O? 1ON C,.0N-i,2AC; (FARM AND RANCH) 77 ' Lloyd Land, Roland Nuss, RECEIVED FROM -,-J-' !a `eec:_-__ tic. Les Stolte -------, l_a�.dl_ar_ �I Purchaser (ca jot't tenant_) the , f $9 ,v a0___00_ --- in the form of __ca C'< —`---- I i II to be he1c; by Sc?} br rcrinrrr.;--c czmTrr-i-trs terr - II as earnest money and part payment nor the following- described :cal estate situate in the ----------- I County of .---- %f elti — _— Colorado, to wit: I (See :?':,tach2l„-1C.) " I with all easements and rights of way appurtenant thereto,all imptovenlents thereon and all fixtures of a permanent nature currently on the premises except as hereinafter provided, in their present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, known as --_--- -- -- which property purchaser agree, co i ey upon the following tetras and conditions, for the purchase price of ,- v_., , “::),_03C),00 payable as follows: }�Q0yf'i 7_ hereby receipted for, $ ) _ • in ca:-b a cite is - i - 1. If a note and trust deal or n.ortgage is to be assumed, the purchaser agrees to pay a loan transfer fee not I to exceed $_ and is is a condition of this contract that the purchaser may assume such encumbrance without change in its teims or conditions except _— - - 2. Price to include the following personal property: Fences , corrals, outbuLldings--if any. to be conveyed by bill of sale a: time of closing in their present condition, free and clear of all personal property taxes,liens and encumbrances,except: - Airplane hangar which belongs to Lloyd Land. and except any personal property liens in any encumbrance specified in paragraph 4. The following fixtures of a permanent nature are excluded from this sale: 3. An abstract of title to said property, certified to date, or a surreal commitment for title insurance policy in an amount equal to the purchase price, at seller's option and expense;shell be furnished the purchaser on cr before flay 30 , 19 77 .Lr seller elects to furnish said title insurance commitment, seller will deliver the title insurance policy to purchaser after closing and pay the premium thereon. 4. Title shall be merchantable in the seller. Subject to payment or tender as above provided and compliance with the other terms anti conditions hereunder by purchaser, the seller shall execute and deliver a good and sufaicient General warranty deed to said purchaser o -`Y ,19 77 ,or,by mutual agreement, at an earlier date, conveying said property free and clear of all taxes, except the general taxes for 19 77, payable January 1, 19 '' , and except -- tree and clear of all liens and encumbrances except: Reservations as contained in Deed fro_. Union Pa0ific Railroad C mgany to The Western Land Company recorded October 2, 19O8 in Book 230 , P. 171, 'and 'other "reservations of recor I including but not limited to those recorded Book 833, P. 487; Book 8, 3 , PP.485 Book 833 P. 489 ' Book 833 , P. 491 : Book 833 , P. 537; Book 814 , , Book,,1109, -P. 166,,-Weld,• Counjty, Colorado. rAnd all existing roads , highways , ditchesL utilities , pipelines cowe,`: ur Lelephuiand re lines, rinl>ts�fi gay-aZzct—ea5.erirelTts`-,C - No.SC 24-7-71 Receipt and Option Contract(Faun&Ranch) —Bradford Publishing Os. SL4 Stout Str..et,Denver,Co:orv? A% RICHARD 0. HAYES ' r l Fly Dispersal in a Rural Area near Savannah, Georgia K.I) QCARTE1ciAN,J.R.KILPATRICIC,and WILLIS MATHIS1 The importance of insect dispersal in The property selected for the release relation to control operations has long point of the first Lest was a farm unit con- been recognized. The widespread use of sisting of a large screened dwelling, thre. DDT and other residual type insecticides large barns housing livestock, several out- for fly control in rural areas and the re- buildings containing equipment and farm sultana development of fly resistance to supplies, and six large chicken houses these chemicals have emphasized the containing approximately 10,000 chick- need for a more adequate knowledge of ens. This farm was considerably larger fly dispersal habits. In tests near Dallas, than the average unit, and was selecte 1 Texas,Bishop') &Laake (1921) developed for its high fly population so early in the now classical data on the flight ranges of season. The marked flies were released at several of the common species of flies. dusk on the evening of April 29, 195x. Powdered chalk of different colors and One recovery trap was placed at each paint pigments were used as the marking farm unit within a 2-mile radius of the re- agents in that work. More recently,Lind- lease point and at most of the premises quist et al. (1951) conducted experiments within the 2- to 3-mile zone. Five traps in Oregon on the flight habits of Mona were placed beyond the 3-mile zone. After doinestica, Plrormia regina and Phaenicia the third day, three of the eight traps in sericata, using radioactive phosphorus as the 1-mile zone and seven from other the method of tagging the Lest flies. original points were removed and placed In both of these experiments, however, at new locations for various distances up the test flies were released during the mid- to 8.25 miles (airline) from the release portion of the day in open areas where point. Traps were placed only on farm there was little if any attractant material_ premises; none were placed in the open or The flies used in the releases were wild wooded areas lying between the farm flies trapped in other locations or were units. Molasses was used as bait on the laboratory-reared flies. The release of first trapping day, but it failed to attract large numbers of flies at one point under the flies effectively and the bait was these somewhat abnormal conditions may changed to fish heads for the balance of the have affected their migratory tendencies. trapping period. Flies were trapped at The studies reported here were conducted several locations on the release point under conditions more closely approach- premises for approximately 1 hour on ing the natural environmental conditions each of 7 out of 15 clays following the re- of the test flies. lease of the marked flies. PRocEDPRE.--The area selected for In the second dispersal test, five pre- these studies was a portion of Effingham rinses were selected as release points, lo- County near Savannah, Ga. It is consid- cated at distances ranging from 11 to 34 . erect to be reasonably typical of the farm- miles of each other. Four of these formed lug section of the Atlantic coastal plain a rough rectangle, with the fifth located cf the southeastern United States. The near the center. This fifth unit was tile premises are from 110 mile to several miles same one used as the release point in the apart, with extensive pine woodlands first dispersal test. The other four were and low black gum and cypress swamp- selected from premises at which high re- lands frequently intervening. Structures cove-ries of tagged flies had been made in comprising the farm units varied from the first test, and represented more typ- isolated shacks to large dwellings with ical farm units. The tagged flies in this surrounding outbuildings housing live- test were released on June 19, 19.51. stock,chickens, and equipment. RESULTS.- In the first experiment, an The techniques for obtaining, marking, estimated total of 13,500 Jlusca domest:ca releasing, recovery, monitoring, and iden- and 600 others, mostly ('allitroga macel- tification of the flies used in these two laria, were tagged and released on April tests were the same as those employed by Quaterman et al. (1951) in their studies of 1 Communicable Ih-ease Center,Public Health Service,U.S nepartmc nt at Iicalth, Education, and Welt:re, Slvanmal,, fly dispersal in urban areas. Georgia. 413 ((7 414 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 3 Table 1.—Marked wild house flies in traps following release on a rural premises near Savannah, Georgia,April 30 to May 15, 1951. PER CENT I No.FLIES TRAPPED PER CENT NUMBER TRAPS POST- I-- MILES FROM TRAPS TIVE FOR Trapped Flies Tagged Flies RELEASE POINT OPERATED TAGGED FLIES Total Tagged Tagged Recovered \ / 0.15-1.0 8 100 16,244 / 845 5.2 6.26 \^ 1.1 2.0 11 91 20,579 �(�.' 127 0.6 0 94 2.1 -3.0 25 68 4,697 II; 73 1.6 0.54 3.1 -4.0 8 63 802 r ' 14 1.7 0.10 4.1 -5.0 3 33 864 1 0.1 0.01 5.1 -6.0 2 I 0 1,571 0 0 0 6.1 -7.0 2 0 2,234 0 0 0 7.1 -8.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 -9.0 1 100 50 1 1.9 0.01 Totals 60 70 47,041 1,061 2.3 ' I 7.86 29. The failure of the molasses bait to at- located on premises away from the release tract the flies resulted in the complete point, the most distant being 8.25 airline loss of data at the release point for the miles away—the farthest point at which day following release and for 2 days at the a trap was placed. Had a suitable bait other trapping sites.The percentage of the been used during the first 2 days after total house flies trapped at the release release, the percentage of tagged flies re- point on the second and third days after covered probably would have been even release which were found to be tagged, greater. was 24 and 24.9 per cent, respectively. One of the most striking features of this Therefore, it was estimated that about 25 release was the indication that the pre- per cent of the total house fly population mises selected as the release point con- on the premises had been tagged. By the tributed a high percentage of flies to the fifth day after release, only 4 per cent of fly populations of surrounding premises. the flies trapped on the release point pre- Tagged flies were collected in all of the mises were tagged flies.They had declined traps operated in the area within 1 mile of to 2.8 per cent by the eighth day, 0.5 per the release point. Of the total house flies cent by the twelfth day, 0.2 per cent on trapped in this 1-mile zone during the the fifteenth day, and no marked flies trapping period, 5.2 per cent were tagged were recovered on the sixteenth day when flies (Table 1). When it is considered that trapping was discontinued at all locations. an estimated 25 per cent of the flies pre- On that last date, however, 11 traps at sent on the release point premises were premises away from the release point con- originally tagged, it is reasonable to as- tained marked flies, ranging up to 3 per sume the tagged flies recovered in all cent of the total catch for that day in traps represented approximately 25 per some traps. cent of the total flies migrating from the It was not until the third day after the release point. On this basis of reasoning, release that the outlying recovery traps over 20 per cent of the flies on the pre- operated effectively. On that day tagged mises within 1 mile of the release point flies were recovered in 11 traps ranging up migrated from the release-point farm, 2.4 to 3.7 airline miles and extending in all di- per cent in the 1- to 2-mile zone, 6.4 per rections from the release point. Tagged cent in the 2- to 3-mile zone, and 6.8 per flies were recovered in 20 traps on the cent in the 3- to 4-mile zone. At some of fourth day and in 24 on the fifth day. the individual trapping sites, tagged flies Daily dispersal maps were prepared on several occasions represented more and the direction of fly movement corn- than 15 per cent of the total house fly pared with the prevailing wind directions. catch, suggesting that at least 50 per cent There was no detectable effect of wind of the population may have migrated direction on the movement of the flies. from the release point. Almost 10 per cent of the total tagged In surveying the area prior to selection house flies were recovered in traps. Ap- of a site for the release point, it was noted proximately 8 per cent were taken in traps tha the house fl. pt ulation was gen-yi, 4,_vvtj� 1�Lf i� t June 1954 QUARTERMAN ET AL.: FLY DISPERSAL IN A RURAL AREA 415 1 f B—RELEASE Pa+rs p N TRAP LOORTIONS O - . . T — _ O ,'4/, \, Y I -7 / 0------"---- -- I / i 1 —5i --7 o � 1 ` �I+ ,14)V1/ / p o O P-.- t C�y / /y 1.ttMt�� 1 , . `, ' \N\:\, / , ___74 o_ -- tr--, . I T..., I--- ik____-s\---, p \ O O O FIG.1.—Simultaneous dispersal of wild Jlusca domestica from five release points in a typical rural area of southeast Georgia—June 20 to July 2, 1951. erally low over most of the area, but was in distance up to 5 miles from the release relatively h:gh at the point of release and points. Twenty-six traps contained was increasing rapidly. Results of the dis- marked flies on the second day, 25 on the persal test indicate rather strongly that a third,and 24 for the week-end catch which very high percentage of the flies over the was collected on the sixth day after re- large area covered by the traps originated lease. On the seventh day only 11 traps at the release point, or were passing contained marked flies, 12 on the eighth, through there at the time test flies were 7 on the ninth, 5 on the tenth and only 2 trapped for marking. for the second 3-day week end ending on There were only a few premises in the the thirteenth day, which was the last area with such high fly breeding potential. day the traps were operated. From the results of these studies, it would As in the first test,the flies moved in all appear tha effective fly control early in directions simultaneously.Flies from three the season at these relatively few high fly different release points were frequently producing premises might effect sub- recovered in the same trap on the same stantial fly reductions in a wide area. day. Centrally located traps often con- In the second test, flies from the re- tained marked flies from two release covery traps were removed beginning at points situated in opposite directions from noon on June 20, following release of the the recovery traps in which they were marked flies after dark on the evening caught. Figure 1 shows the composite dis- of June 19 at points I to IV, inclusive. persal pattern of the house flies in this Marked specimens were collected on this second release test and is representative first day in 15 out of the 57 traps in of the general pattern of dispersal of all operation,exclusive of those at the release species in both tests. The farthest dis- points. Twelve of these 15 positive traps tances at which marked flies were recov- contained marked house flies, and ranged ered were approximately 7* miles for 416 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 3 Table 2.—Marked wild house flies recovered following release on five rural premises near Savan- nah, Georgia, June 20 to July 2, 1951. 0 1 1.1 2 1 3 1 4.1 , 5 1 6 1 7 1 8.1 TO TO TO TO TO I TO TO TO TO MILLS FROV RELFASE POINT 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5 0 6 0 7.0 8.0 10 0 TOTALS Release point I (1,500 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 3 4 12 9 9 9 4 5 2 57 %traps positive-tagged flies 100 100 42 41 0 0 0 0 0 28 Total flies trapped 6,516 163,335 50,304 88,406 41,899 45,034 4,218 37,283 3,995 440,980 No.of tagged flies trapped 11 13 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 34 %recovery-tagged flies 0.73 0 87 0.33 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Release point II (11,000 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 1 5 10 12 12 5 8 3 1 57 %traps positive-tagged flies 100 60 10 25 17 0 0 0 0 18 Told flies trapped 2,109 150,148 59,361 75,858 100,054 6,492 9,899 7,109 22,279 434,199 No of tagged flies tripped 10 20 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 38 %recosery-tagged flies 0 09 0 18 0.01 0 05 0 02 0 0 0 0 0.35 Release point III (5,400 tagged flies released) No.of traps operated 3 7 8 12 10 5 5 4 3 57 %traps positive-tagged flies 100 87 63 17 20 20 20 25 0 33 Total flies trapped 35,501 20,836 151,504 111,358 47.802 19,095 22,912 28,736 2,715 438,859 No.of tagged flies trapped 47 12 10 2 2 1 2 1 0 77 %recovery-tagged flies 0.87 0 22 0.18 0.04 0.02 0 02 0.04 0.02 0 1.43 Release point IV (7,700 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 3 11 9 8 9 4 7 4 2 57 %traps positne-tagged flies 67 64 33 25 11 21 14 0 0 30 Total flies trapped 17,299 168,919 97,220 22,801 01,896 29,538 21,479 17,776 2,033 438,961 No.of tagged flies trapped 25 34 I1 2 1 1 1 0 0 75 %recovery-tagged flies 0.32 0 43 0 14 0 03 0.01 0 01 0 01 0 0 0.97 Release point V (9,100 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 4 6 13 12 8 7 4 2 1 57 %traps positive-tagged flies 100 .50 31 8 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total flies trapped 79,495 30,246 158,203 37,442 23,641 20,937 8,157 22,501 1,811 382,43`3 No.of tagged flies trapped 81 3 8 I 0 0 0 0 0 93 %recovery-tagged flies 0.89 0 03 0.09 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 1.03 Totals for all release points No.of traps operated 14 33 52 53 48 30 28 18 9 285' %traps positive-tagged flies 93 64 35 23 10 7 7 6 0 26 No.of tagged flies trapped 174 82 35 15 5 2 8 1 0 317 I A total of only 57 traps was used,but since each trap served for each of the 5 release points simultaneously and was located so it was a different distance from each of the various i elense points,each trap was equivalent to 5 traps for the purpose of the total figures ,n this section of the table. house flies in a west-southwesterly direc- The same premises was used as a release tion and approximately 10 miles for Calli- point in both tests. In the earlier study in troga macellaria in a northeasterly direc- May, almost 8 per cent of the marked tion.Both were recovered in the first week flies were recovered away from the release end trap catch collected on the sixth day point, as compared to only 1 per cent in after release and which included a 3-day the second test approximately 6 weeks catch of flies. In considering these long- later. The low recoveries of marked flies distance catches,it should be kept in mind for the other 4 release points in June in- that out of the 57 recovery traps in opera- dicate that the recovery data for release tion,only from 3 to 7 of them were located point V were representative of conditions more than 7 miles from the various release prevailing at that particular time. points. There is no ready explanation for the Tables 2 and 3 present data on the re- low recovery of marked flies in the second coveries of marked house flies and Cal- test. The fly population was much greater litrogra macellaria similar to that shown throughout the test area in June than in table 1 for house flies in the first test. during early May. Based on the total It will be noted from table 2 that the re- number of house flies taken in the 60 re- covery of marked house flies in the second covery traps during 14 days of trapping release was much lower than that of the (47,041) in May as compared to that first test. The contrast may be seen taken in 57 traps during 13 trapping days clearly by comparing the data in table 1 in June (440,980), the total house fly with that for release point V in table 2. population in the general test area was June 1954 QUARTERMAN ET AL.:FLY DISPERSAL IN A RURAL AREA 417 Table 3.—Marked wild Callitroga macellaria recovered following releases on five rural premises near Savannah, Georgia, June 20 to July 2, 1951. 0 1 1.1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6.1 7.1 8 1 TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO MILLS FROM RFLLANL POINT 1.0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7.0 8.0 10.0 TOTALS Release point I 250 tagged flies released) No.of traps operated 3 4 12 9 9 9 4 5 2 57 %traps posit'',a-tiv'g d flies 67 25 05 0 11 11 0 0 0 14 Total flies trapped 1,031 1,632 7,212 5,406 6,163 5,221 2,977 9,848 2,538 42,088 No of tagged flies trapped 2 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 ';o recovery-tagged they 0 80 0 40 1 60 0 0 10 0 40 0 0 0 3.60 Release point II -- ----I ----- - --- (75 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 1 5 10 12 12 5 8 3 1 57 c'c traps positne-tagged flies 0 0 10 8 8 0 0 0 0 5 Total flies trapped 287 1,735 4,874 7,489 7,899 3,412 10,671 4,448 1,561 42,376 No of tagged flies trapped 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 ',a recovery-tagged flies 0 0 4 0 1 33 1 33 0 0 0 0 6.67 Release point III (50 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 3 7 8 12 10 5 5 4 3 57 ';(,traps positive-tagged flies 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total flies trapped 3,757 3,541 2,952 9,029 11,437 4,941 1,925 3,536 1,087 42,218 No of tagged flies trapped 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 %recovery-tagged flies 6 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 00 Release point IV (1,000 tagged flies released) No of traps operated 3 11 9 8 9 4 7 4 2 57 %traps positne-tagged flies 100 61 67 50 11 25 0 0 50 40 Total flies trapped 1,335 6,867 5,918 6,998 8,696 2,196 5,362 8,758 785 41,915 No.of tagged flies trapped 51 22 12 5 2 1 0 0 1 67 %recovery-tagged thes 2 10 2.20 1.20 0 50 0.20 0.10 0 0 0 10 6.70 Release point V (100 tagged flies released) No.of traps operated 4 6 13 12 8 7 4 2 1 57 %traps positn e-tagged flies 25 17 15 18 0 0 0 0 0 11 Total flies trapped 1,687 2,017 9,313 7,802 4,i257 8,879 5,600 1,680 666 41,926 No of tagged flies trapped 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 is rceoscry-tagged flies 1 00 1 00 3 00 2 00 0 0 0 0 0 7.00 Totals for all release points No.of traps operated 11 I 83 52 53 I 48 30 28 18 9 2851 -traps positn e-tagged flies 57 I 27 23 13 6 7 0 0 11 15 No.of tagged flies trapped 30 21 22 8 4 2 0 0 1 91 IA total of only 57 traps was used,but since each trap served for each of the 5 release points simultaneously and was located so It was a different distance from each of the various release points,earls trap was equivalent to 5 traps for the purpose of the total f.gures in this section O1 the table. approximately 10 times greater during of the former may have been more clearly the second test period. The prevailing demonstrated. temperatures were also considerably In analyzing the recovery data, con- higher during the second test, and the sideration must be given to the fact that recovery traps were somewhat more dis- the areas within 1 mile of the release versed. points were, in general, more adequately From the data in tables 2 and 3, it will trapped than the more distant zones. The be noted that most of the marked house land area per trap in operation increased flies and Callitroga macellaria which were greatly in each succeeding 1-mile zone • recovered were trapped within 3 miles of around the release points. Consequently, the respective release points. From these the fact that most of the marked flies were tables it may be seen that the dispersal recovered within the first 1-mile zone patterns of house flies and C. macellaria around the release points does not nec- were quite similar. However, it has been essarily mean that most of the tagged generally considered that C. macellaria flies remained within 1 mile of the release are more migratory in their habits than points. If the average number of marked house flies, and the higher rate of recover- flies recovered per trap in the respective ies of the marked C. macellaria tends to 1-mile zones were multiplied by a cor- substantiate that belief. If the numbers of rection factor to equalize all traps on the C. macellaria released in the tests had basis of land area served, the results been more comparable to the numbers of would indicate that most of the tagged house flies, the greater migratory habits flies moved out beyond the 1-mile zone. 418 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 3 Table 4.—Wild flies recovered' in traps following releases on five rural premises near Savannah, Georgia, June 20 to July 2, 1951. Callttroga Sarcophaga RELEASE POINT Musca don+estica ntacellaria Phacnicia SPP. I SPP. MISC.SPECIES I 1,500(2.3) 250(3.6) 30(7)2 30(0) 10(20)3 II 11,000(0.4) 75(6.7) 15(0) 30(0) 15(20) III 5,400(1.4) 50(6.0) 35(6)' 70(0) 10(0) IV 7,700(1.0) 1,000(6.7) 100(0) 200(1.5)6 100(0) V 9,100(1.0) 100(7.0) 5(0) 20(0) 10(0) Totals 34,700(0.9) 1,475(6.2) 185(2.2) I 350(0.9) 145(1.4) 1 Per cent recovered gisen in parentheses. 2 One Phaenzcza scricata recovered 2 25 miles from release point and one P.caerulezzzrzdzs recovered 0.8 mile,both on the second day after release. 8 One Ophyra leucostoma recovered 2.8 miles from release point on first day after release,and one Muscina stabulans 0 8 mile on the second day after release. +Two P serzcata recovered 0.7.5 and 1 2 miles from release point,respectively,both on the second day after release. 5 One Sarcophaga saeta recovered 1 5 miles from release point in week-end catch including the 4th to 6th days after release,one S.bullata 0.8 mile on the 7th day,and one S.suds 2.7 miles on the 8th day. This was especially true for the blow flies. premises the day after release may appear As the flies were dispersed over larger high, it is the opinion of the writers that areas as the distance from the release it is not too greatly in error. The percent- points increased, the density of the ages at release points II, III, and IV were marked flies naturally decreased. well correlated with the observed fly Table 4 also shows the recoveries of populations. The figure for release point other species of marked flies. These re- V is considered a little low, although the coveries must be considered as isolated size of the premises and the enormous fly flight records, since the numbers involved population which it produced and sus- were too small to be of any substantial tamed, made it impossible to obtain any significance. accurate visual estimate of the fly popula- The speed with which the marked flies tion. tended to move away from the release From table 5, it will be noted that in points is indicated by the data in table 5, most instances the marked flies appar- which also indicates the percentage of the ently moved out rapidly to other loca- total fly populations which were marked Lions. Within a few days the majority of on each of the release point premises. The marked flies had moved on from the re- percentages of flies marked at the release lease points. This rapid movement was points, as indicated by the trap catches substantiated by the large number of on the day following the releases, were in positive collections the first 3 days follow- general agreement with observations of ing the releases. As in the first test, the fly populations on the respective marked flies continued to be taken in the premises at the time the flies were origi- recovery trap away from the release nally trapped for marking.The population points after they ceased to be taken in at release point I was quite low and, while traps at the release point. the figure 94 per cent for the proportion The speed with which the marked flies of marked flies in the population on the left the release points, and their dispersal Table 5.—Per cent of house fly population represented by tagged flies trapped at five release points • in rural areas of southeast Georgia at indicated intervals following their release. TRAPPING DAYS AFTER RELEASE p RELEASE PERIOD POINT (1951) 1 2 I 3 4 I 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I June 20—July 2 194 20 10 — — — 2 0.8 1.4 0 — — 0 — — II June 20—July 2 24 11 9 — I — 6 2 1 0.5 1 — — 0 — — III June 20—July 2 14 5 , 6 — — 1 1 0 5 0 0 IV June 20—July 2 56 82 25 — I — 7 8 1 3 20 — I — 1 — — V' June 22—July 2 4 — — 82 10 0.1 0.3 0.2 — — 0.12 — — V Apr.30—May 15 - 21 25 - I 4 - - 3 - - - I 0.5 — — 1020 z Trap operated full time at this point and only 1 hour per day at all other sites 2 Represents a S-day catch accumulating over a week end. June 1954 QUARTERMAN ET AL.:FLY DISPERSAL IN A RURAL AREA 419 patterns based on the marked flies re- had been caught. To minimize the effects covered, indicate that a very large ma- of the temporary caging, the releases of jority of house flies and Callitroga macel- the marked flies were made at dusk after laria, and perhaps other common species it had become too dark for them to mi- of blow flies, are constantly moving about grate. probably at random within an area 8 to 10 In a test conducted the first part of miles in diameter, with some individuals May, only one release point was used. In dispersing even more widely. Within this a second test during the latter part of area there appears to be a constant inter- June, five release points were used simul- change of fly populations, with larger taneously. Dyes were used in combination numbers concentrating at locations haw- with P-32 to mark the test flies. House ing more favorable supplies of food and flies were recovered up to 5 miles from the breeding materials. Most of the premises release points in less than 24 hours after used in these tests provided ample food release. The range and pattern of flight of and breeding material for flies. The fact the house flies in these tests were quite that they left such places in great num- similar to those of Callitroga macellaria, bers and were frequently recovered in less although the higher percentages of C. desirable situations clearly demonstrates macellaria taken in the recovery traps that flies normally range over a relatively tended to substantiate the general belief large area in a manner similar to that ob- that it is the more migratory of the two served for many higher forms of animal species. life. That flies, as other forms of life, In both tests the flies apparently dis- have a "living space" in which they live persed at random over an area 8 to 10 has always been recognized, but the re- miles in diameter, with a few individuals sults of these tests indicate that this being trapped up to 10 miles from the re- "living space" for house flies, at least, lease point. Within the general dispersal is much larger in area than was previously area, the flies tended to congregate more supposed. at premises where food and breeding ma- Sm1iIARY.—Dispersal tests were con- terial were more favorable. The avail- ducted in rural areas of southeast Georgia ability of these materials, however, did with natural populations of wild house not prevent great numbers of flies from flies and Callitroga macellaria, obtained leaving any given location, indicating by trapping adult flies on the rural prem- that movement over this relatively large ises used as the release points. They area is a normal pattern of fly activity. were marked with radioactive phosphorus by feeding them milk containing P-32. ACKNOWLC71VT,—The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr Harold R Dodge m identifying some of the The marked flies were released on the tagged flies reco ered m these experiments,and of Mr.Jens A same premises on which they originallyJensen m the preparation of the milk containing P-S2 used in tagging the flocs LITERATURE CITED Bishopp,F.C.,and E. W. Laake. 1921. Dispersion of flies by flight.Jour Agr. Res 21(10):729-66 Lindquist,Arthur W., W. W.Yates,and Robert A.Hoffman. 1951 Studies of the flight habits of three species of flies tagged with radioactive phosphorus. JOUR. ECON. ENT 44(3):397-100. Quarterman,K.D., Willis Mathis, and J. W. Kilpatrick. 1954 -Urban fly dispersal in the area of Sa- vannah, Georgia. JOUR. ECON. ENT.47:405-12. Reprinted from the JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol 47,No.3,pp 413-419, June 1954 RV H,UD• O. HAYES . 1 Multiple Release Studies on the Dispersion of Musca domestics at Phoenix, Arizona H.F.SCnooF AND R.E.SIVERLYI Investigations conducted at Phoenix, the specimens. Immediately after dye Arizona, in June and September 1951 treatment, the specimens were released, provided information on the dispersal of the liberations occurring simultaneously Musca domestica from two problem areas from the five problem areas at dusk. (Schoof et al. 1952). In 1952, further The liberation sites selected included a studies were made to ascertain the relative poultry ranch, lettuce dump, rendering influence of five major fly production plant, meat packing concern, and a hog sources upon the control program which farm. Each of these locations was a source was operating within the community.As a of high fly attractivity and possessed a measure of the individual importance of breeding potential ranging from moderate each location, the dispersion patterns of to heavy. Figure 1 shows the location of marked flies released simultaneously at five sites with reference to the city of the five sites were determined. This paper Phoenix. summarizes the findings. In establishing the pattern of recovery METTIODS.—Procedures of operation traps, stations were designated for each can be summarized as follows: release site separately at distances of 0.5 a. Removal of approximately 70,000 flies from mile, 1, 2, 3, and 4 miles. To measure the the normal fly population at each release site. directional movement of specimens from b. Tagging the captured specimens with P-32 by each site, the 0.5-and 1-mile intervals for feeding them radioactive milk for a 24-hour each release point contained traps period. c. Marking the radioactive fly population at each throughout their circumferences. At the site with a dye, the latter being characteristic more distant intervals, fly traps were of the release point involved. located only in the direction of the city it- d Recapture of marked, dyed specimens by self. As the trap patterns of the various means of baited traps located at varying dis- tance intervals from the release points. sites overlapped to a large degree, the en- tire complement of stations was con- Radioactive milk was prepared at the sidered as serving each release point, thus rate of 1 microgram of P-32 for each milli- giving a total of 123 sites for each libera- liter of milk solution.The feeding methods tion point throughout a 7.5 mile range. were the same as those outlined in pre- Collections were begun 24 hours after the vious tests (Schoof et al. 1952). specimens were released and continued The five dyes used to mark the radio- daily for a 7-day period. The eighth col- active specimens were Calco Oil Red lection represented a 3-day catch.In addi- -1700,Calcogas Green O-9660,Calco Oil tion to the outlying traps, a single trap Yellow ZG concentrate, Calcogas Violet was operated at each release site for the special, and Calco Oil Black B-3804.2 time intervals previously indicated. Each of the agents was dissolved in an To detect the tagged dyed flies, the acetone solution at the rate of 2.5 grams of trap collections were first processed by a dye per 100 milliliters of acetone. This count rate meter equipped with a Geiger solution was then sprayed upon the caged tube having a mica end window with a specimens with an ordinary household thickness of 3.2 milligrams per centimeter. hand sprayer. Although laboratory tests All radioactive specimens recovered were indicated this method of marking to be then treated with acetone and/or acetic adequate, field application showed that acid to determine the type of dye present. certain dyes, particularly the yellow and RESULTS.—Table 1 depicts the re- violet, failed to remain in suspension and covery of marked specimens liberated at clogged the spray equipment rapidly. As the five release points. As is evident, a a result,the flies at two sites were treated higher percentage of the flies released at directly with the dye powder as described by Schoof & Mail 1953 . All dyes were I From the Communicable Disease Center. Public Health ( ) Service,U S.Department of Health,Education,and Welfare, applied to the flies at the close of the 24- Atlanta,Ga,and Phoenix,Ariz,respectively. 2 Products of Calco Chemical Division,American Cyanamid hour period of feeding radioactive milk to Co,Bound Brook,N.J. 830 • October 1954 SCROOF & SIvERLY:DISPERSION OF IIOtiSE FLIES 831 Table 1.—Number of flies released and number of flies captured as related to five different libera- tion sites. MEAT 11OG POULTRY PACKING LETTUCE RENDERING FARM RANCH CONCERN DUMP PLANT TOTAL Tagged flies released 60,300 75,000 74,820 71,940 59,940 342,000 Tagged flies recovered Release point 378 666 910 802 163 2,949 Field sites 1,124 816 641 454 269 3,304 Total flies recovered Release point 41,760 16,830 42,375 , 52,715 22,916 176,626 Field sites — — — ' — — 3,389,843 the hog farm (1.9 per cent) was recap- site being the only instance in which tired outside the liberation point than maximum recovery of the tagged flies did occurred with flies released at the other not prevail on the fourth postrelease day. four locations. However, on the basis of As the time interval increased, the factors • tagged flies trapped at each release point of distribution and of mortality gradually ) itself, the hog farm ranked fourth, re- diminished the chances of tagged speci- coveries at the meat packing house and men recovery. Untagged fly recovery lettuce dump exhibiting the maximum fluctuated in magnitude during the survey percentages of 1.3 and 1.1.In view of the period but no specific trends were appar- relatively low number of total flies ent. trapped at the poultry ranch, this site At each of the five sites at which the provided a disproportionately high quan- specimens were liberated,the recapture of tity of tagged flies. marked flies followed the expected pat- Of the 3,304 tagged flies retrieved at tern, the greatest number being taken on the field sites, the maximum recovery the first postrelease day, after which the occurred on the fourth day after liberation numbers generally diminished (Table 3). when 726 radioactive specimens were At all release sites except the rendering trapped (Table 2). The collection for the plant,the decline was progressive. At that initial postrelease day yielded 274 flies, site, both tagged and untagged fly re- the number of marked flies increasing up coveries were meager' except during the to the fourth day,and thereafter declining fourth postrelease day when more than 70 to 117 specimens on the last postrelease per cent of the total tagged flies retrieved survey (tenth day). The same general were collected.The upsurge of recovery of sequence of prevalence noted for the coin- marked specimens at the rendering plant bined data was manifested for the five in- site for that one period was the chief dividual release points, the recapture of cause of the break in the progressive de- specimens released at the poultry ranch a Evidence indicated that plant personnel sprayed the premises during this time which presumably accounts for the low re- Table 2.—Number of tagged and untagged coveries. flies recovered at field sites, by time interval. RADIO- Table 3.—Number of tagged and untagged DATE UNTAGGED ACTIVE' flies recovered at the 5 release sites. May 17 285,705 271 DATE UNTAGGED TAGGED 18 239,402 467 19 385,367 551 May 17 12,246 1,706 20 521,645 726 18 15,015 532 21 562,000 576 19 12,200 177 22 490,180 382 20 23,005 279 23 444,095 208 21 21,480 117 26 638,075 117 22 31,570 65 23 25,110 55 Total 3,566,469 3,304 26 33,000 18 I Excludes flies taken at the same release point at which they Total 176,626 2,949 were liberated. • 832 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 5 I \` \ — SECTION BOUNDARIES \` ILETTERS DESIG..;rE SECTIONS) I ......... CITY LI NI TS HOC FARM C4'44,O \ — YETROPOUTAN AREA I I Q r6 \ I Q 1.r fl L a - L I I Le, %A6 ERR I . . O MEAT PACKING I /CONCERN / RIVER / LE CE 5 A T CITY OF DUMP RENDERING PI:QITY F PLANT ARIZ 0 Y l • SCALE IN TNGNSANCE CA rm OEM'MI CONNYEIGAELE DIE4lr GENIES •TL•s A.EA Mr.LIES. Fie 1.-Map of Phoenix,Arizona,showing the location of the five liberation sites. crease in numbers apparent on the fourth data in figure 2 can be considered to be postrelease day (Table 3). more characteristic of the population as a For a measurement,of the speed of dis- whole. persal of the marked fly populations from As an index to the degree of influence the release points, the number of sites which each problem site exerted upon the positive for tagged specimens was con- community, trap collection data for sta- sidered in relation to time. As is evident tions located within 1.2 miles on opposite from figure 2, the principal area of recap- sides of each liberation site were tabu- Lure of tagged flies during the initial 24 lated separately. Based on the average hours after liberation was within the 0.1- number of tagged flies per trap, the re- to 1.1-mile zone. Within 48 to 72 hours, a sults (Table 4) showed that, for the hog comparable percentage of positive sites farm and rendering plant releases, higher occurred within the 1.2- to 2.3-mile zone. trap indices were obtained in the areas Similar, although lesser, augmentations away from rather than toward the city. were apparent at the more distant inter- The opposite was true for flies released at vals concurrent with the increase in time. the lettuce dump and poultry ranch. At When speed of dispersal is based on the the meat packing concern,dispersion was capture of individual specimens, move- of approximately equal magnitude in went from the five sites ranged from 1.8 both directions. These latter data are to 5.0 miles within 24 hours, and from 3.3 contrary to those reported previously to 5.6 miles within 48 hours. IIowever, as (Schoof el al. 1952), when the major fly these records are more representative of movement from the same liberation site the extreme movements of a few flies, the was toward the city. October 1954 ScnooF & SIVERLY: DISPERSION OF IJOUSE FLIES 833 MO= LEGEND . ®0.1 -1.1 MI. ©4.8-5.9 MI. t7-7 ®1.2-2.3 MI. CI 6.0-7.1 MI. x.' "ti :, X2.4-3.5Mi. X7.2-8.3 MI. ;°; � :': 80— ®3.6-4.7MI. r� a,: › ?;c '▪/ � Y 00— ," '' 1,, '4y wo - ., " 'J • / ...•.(,- a. ' 40— :1R / : /, � — tiY �,` `-- - .' 1� �� _ 24 HOURS 48 HOURS 72 HOURS 96 HOURS 120 HOURS FIG.2.—Speed of movement of tagged fly population based on cumulative percentage of positive stations,at 7 distance intervals. The amount of population movement ranch, meat packing concern, lettuce from each release point as measured by dump, and rendering plant, respectively percentage recovery of marked flies re- (Figure 3); within the 2.3 mile circumfer- vealed 68, 81, 53, 61, and 72 per cent of ence, 86, 91, 91, 94 and 94. the total number of tagged specimens re- In viewing these percentages, however, trieved from the releases at the hog farm, consideration must be given to the un- poultry ranch, meat packing concern, equal distribution of the traps per unit lettuce dump, and rendering plant, re- area as related to distance from the re- spectively, to be recaptured within 1 mile lease point. In proportion to the area in- of the liberation site.Within 2.3 miles, the volved, the innermost zone (0.2 to 1.1 cumulative percentages totaled 80, 89, 91, mile) was favored for all release points ex- 85, and 91. Because the trapping areas of cept the meat packing plant.At the latter, each release point overlapped,the number the ratio between traps at 0.2 to 1.1 miles of traps per distance interval was erratic, and at 1.2 to 2.3 miles was 1 to 2.8. This To equalize this factor, the percentage re- proportion contrasted the 1:1 or 2:1 covery of radioactive flies was also corn- ratios which existed between the two puted on the average number of flies re- zones, respectively, at the remaining re- captured per trap site. Percentage indices lease points. Despite a closer relationship on this basis for the 1-mile zone were 59, between unit area and trap distribution, 81,73,73,and 72 for the hog farm,poultry the percentage recoveries for the meat packing plant at the 0.2- to 1.1- and the Table 4.—Indices of tagged fly recoveries at 1.2- to 2.3-mile zones were 73/19 ill corn- sites away from and toward the community. parison to percentages of 59/27, 81/13, 73/21 and 72/21 for the other release TOWARD I AWAY points. The lowest recovery rate within Hog farm 19.1 50.6 the 1-mile zone occurred for the hog farm Poultry Ranch 61.0 23.0 release where twice as many traps were Meat Packing Plant 23 5 21.0 located in the 0.2- to 1.1-mile zone as in Lettuce Dump 48 0 15.0 the 1.2-to 2.3-mile zone. In one instance, Rendering Plant 5.2 17.3 25 traps in the 6.0-to 7.1-mile band from 834 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC' ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 5 w 100- LEGEND m ©0.1-1.1 MI I=4 8-5.9 MI. Z - 1221.2-2.3 MI. O6.0-7.1 MI. w CD O2.4-3.5M1. ®7.2-8.3M1. u• 80- M3.6-4.7 Mi. u Q ".'k a H _ ti`. i� J,. o a-60- - r`: } .LJ<ICC ,4. LA a �' r'4 m Ll�SO- u.' ':. V p Wit' O 20_ +`��` .7 ` a 0 HOG FARM POULTRY RANCH MEAT LETTUCE DUMP RENDERING PLANT PACKING CONCERN FIG.3.—Percentage recovery of tagged flies per distance intervals. the lettuce dump release site yielded only lying stations. In contrast, recoveries for 0.16 flies per trap, whereas two traps at the populations liberated at the meat the same distance from the meat packing packing concern and at the lettuce dump plant provided 1.0 fly per trap. This sug- revealed the highest rates of recapture to gests that an augmentation in the number occur at the release points. At the lettuce of positive flies recovered is not necessarily dump, the pattern of trap distribution a sequel to an increase in the number of appeared to favor the release site since traps at those distances. only 15 traps were located in the 0.3- to Since the 122 trap sites were not lo- 2.3-mile zone, a distance interval which cated in specific bands as related to any possesses the maximum recapture po- one release point, they could be combined tential. However, at the meat packing into units at successive distance intervals site,this same zone contained 49 traps and of 0.2 mile and the mean distance traveled the release point still yielded 1.4 times as computed therefrom by the grouped data many flies as the outlying traps. Appar- method. Based on all traps between 0.3 ently the release points at the lettuce and 8.0 miles, the mean distance traveled dump and meat packing concern offered for the tagged population released at the greater degrees of atiractivity (attra- hog farm was 1.5 miles, at the poultry heats and less population pressure) than ranch 0.76 mile,meat packing concern 1.2 did the proximate outlying sites. At the miles, lettuce dump 1.3 miles, and ren- hog farm, the data indicate that the re- dering plant 1.0 mile. As no traps were lo- verse situation prevailed. cated closer to a release point than 0.2 Further results of the tests are con- mile except at the release sites which were sidered separately for each release site: excluded from the computations, these hog Farm.—The 1,124 tagged house mean distances contain a degree of bias flies recovered from this release repre- toward an extended range. sented 87 of the 122 trap locations (71 per The number of tagged flies recaptured cent). Of significance is the fact that 90 at field sites and at the individual release per cent of the 51 stations within the ur- points varied with the release site. At the ban area of Phoenix yielded marked flies. hog farm release site, the number of All stations within 3.5 miles of the libera- specimens recovered was approximately tion site were positive for tagged Jlusca one-third the number retrieved at the out- domestica. October 1954 SCIIOOF & SIvERLY: DISPERSION OF HOUSE FLIES 835 Poultry Ranch.—Radioactive specimens problem source and,therefore, of second- released at this site occurred in 57 per cent ary value. of the trap sites. Of the urban stations,38 The fly potential of the five sites varied were positive for tagged flies. All sites less both in magnitude and tenure. The let- than 2.6 miles from the poultry ranch tuce dump reflected a problem area of ex- yielded radioactive specimens. tremely high potential but one whose Meat Packing Concern. --Tagged flies duration was limited to the period during spread from this site throughout the study which the crop was being harvested area, being found in 72 of the 122 collect- (April-May, September). All of the re- ing stations.Radioactive Musca domestica maining sites were of season-long impor- were encountered in all types of resider- tance. The poultry ranch surpassed the tial and business areas of the city, 56 per meat packing plant, rendering plant, and cent of the 52 urban traps retrieving speci- hog farm in the quantity and quality of mens liberated at the meat packing con- fly production media available. The hog cern. All trap stations within 1.9 miles farm offered the least amount of breeding were positive for marked flies. area with the meat packing and rendering Lettuce Dump.-- -Dispersion of marked plants of equal value. flies from this site followed a north- In regard to distance from the commu- eastern path,positive sites being scattered nity,the hog farm and poultry ranch were over the western half of the city.The Inca- located on the northern and eastern city tion of the release site approximately 2 borders, respectively, while the meat miles southwest of the western border of packing concern, lettuce dump, and ren- the community placed the eastern half of during plant were approximately 0.5, 2.0, Phoenix more than 4 miles from the let- and 1.8 miles, respectively, from the tuce dump. This fact accounts for the southern perimeter of the community. A finding that only one of the 18 sites in the comparison of the percentage of stations eastern half was positive for tagged flies. located within the city which were posi- Of the total stations in the city, 34 per tive for marked flies from each release site cent yielded radioactive Musca domestica; gives some measure of the effect of dis- the identical percentage was positive for tance upon the dispersion pattern. These the 122 trap sites within the entire study data show that the hog farm ranked first, area. having 90 per cent of available sites posi- Rendering Plant.--Marked specimens tive, followed by the poultry ranch (73 liberated at this site succeeded in pene- per cent), meat packing plant (56 per trating city environs to a limited extent cent), lettuce dump (34 per cent), and only. Of the 52 urban sites, 10 were posi- rendering plant (19 per cent). Live for marked house flies. For the entire The previous factors, coupled with the study area, a total of 49 traps recaptured directional data in table 4, yield a signifi- radioactive specimens.Although the num- cance ranking as follows: poultry ranch, ber of specimens taken was low, all but hog farm, meat packing plant, rendering one of the 20 stations north of the Salt plant, and lettuce dump. Thus, from the River (0.7 to 1.9 miles) yielded tagged control standpoint the first named three flies. sites would deserve major emphasis. DISCrSSION.- --One objective of this Further, in view of their location almost multiple release study was to assay the 2 miles from the city environs, it would relative importance of the five problem seem logical to de-emphasize, if not dis- sites in contributing to the fly prevalence regard, the lettuce dump and rendering within the city environs.Factors involved plant as potent threats to the efficacy of in establishing the significance of the vari- the community program. Were either of ous sites included fly production potential, the sites closer to the city, it might pro- proximity of site to the community, at- yoke significant infiltration into the city. trahents in the zone between city and That substantial penetration of the city site, and direction of dispersal from the by flies produced at the lettuce dump did site. Other agents such as chemical and not occur favors the designation of dump- sanitational control measures were not ing sites for lettuce culls at distances of 2.0 considered in this appraisal since their miles or greater from the city. initial utilization is contingent upon the The question as to what constitutes the relative significance of the site as a fly control or effective range of dispersion of 836 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 5 Musca domestica is one not wholly subject However, it is apropos to indicate that to a categorical reply. Previous studies by these methods of handling the data are Bishopp & Laake (1921), Lindquist et al. subject to criticisms on two points. The (1951),Yates et al. (1952), Quarterman et first concerns the assumption, for exam- al. (1954a, 1954b), Parker (1916), and ple, that if a single trap in the 4.0-mile Schoof et al. (1952) have shown that the zone from the release point retrieves two majority of tagged flies recovered (65 to house flies, this recapture rate is equiva- 90 per cent) was within 1 mile of the re- lent in value to an average of eight flies lease point. The significance of the fewer per trap for 15 traps on the 1.0-mile ring tagged specimens caught at distances be- (circumferential ratios for the two dis- yond 1 mile cannot be assayed with cer- Lances, respectively, are 4:1). On this tainty since most of the workers did not basis, the operation of 60 traps on the establish trapping designs commensurate 4-mile circumference should yield the with the areas involved. Theoretically, to same number of tagged flies per site, or a provide each distance zone with an equal total of 120 flies.However,since the num- chance of recapturing marked specimens, ber of positive collections per zone (Table the number of traps per zone should bear 5) or number of positive stations per zone resemblance to areal relationships of the (Figure 2) varies inversely with the dis- various zones (e.g., the 0.5- to 1.0-mile lance the zone is from the release point, zone should contain three times as many such an assumption is erroneous. traps as the 0.1-to 0.5-mile zone, the 0.1- The second discrepancy in this form of to 1.0-mile zone one-fifth the number of reasoning is that it necessitates fly move- traps in the 2.0- to 3.0-mile band). Schoof ment of equal magnitude in all directions, et al. (1952) attempted to equalize trap a point which has not occurred in the four distribution on a circumferential basis, dispersion studies at Phoenix,even within and in a later study'actually placed on an 1 mile from the liberation site. At greater areal basis as many traps proportionately distances, the chances of such equalized in the outer 0.5-mile zone as were present distribution decrease. in the proximate band (0.1- to 0.5-mile). The present data on percentage re- Yates et al. (1952) also distributed the cowry of tagged specimens favor an effec- traps proportionately within 1.0 mile,but tive range of 2.0 miles in contrast to the beyond that distance the stations were 1.0 mile previously mentioned (Schoof et disproportionate in number to the amount al. 1952). While the writers feel that rec- of area involved. ognition of a 2.0-mile periphery lends an As a consequence, dispersion data be- added margin of safety to the size of the yond the 1.0-mile distance have been sub- extraurban area recommended as being ject to much interpretation and an equal placed under control, they are equally amount of conjecture. One method of aware that operations in a peripheral zone weighting the data is to assay the tagged- of such extent would increase immeasura- fly recapture rate on the criterion of speci- bly the cost of control. Were such pro- mens per station and prorate this in ac- cedures unmistakably warranted to ob- cordance with the area involved. By this Lain effective abatement in communities, procedure, the dilution factor which arises recommendation of a 2.0 mile limit would at the greater distances is counter- be clearly justified. However, in view of balanced and the lesser captures at past experience in community fly control, greater distance intervals are evaluated coupled with the data for the lettuce on a basis more comparable to the fruitful dump and rendering plants (two sites 1.8 yields at the closer intervals. to 2.0 miles distant from the city), the The same method of equalization can writers consider the 1.0-mile zone as be computed on the number of flies per marking the general limits within which collection per interval area or by relating extraurban control efforts should be con- the captures per distance intervals to the fined. Furthermore, in many instances increasing amount of circumference in- such a limit may be reduced to 0.5 mile volved. Whatever technique is utilized, it when fly breeding conditions therein generally results in an extension of the justify such a move. Compliance with this dispersion range of flies.Whether such an ,Schoof,H.P.and R.E.Siverly.(Unpublished manuscript) extension is justified cannot be proved or Urban fly dispersion studies with special reference to movement pattern oI Musca domeitzca. Communicable Disease Center, disproved with the available evidence. Atlanta,Georgia,and Phoenix,Arizona. October 1954 SCIIOOF & SIVERLY: DISPERSION OF IIOtiSE FLIES 837 Table 5.—Percentage of total collections posi- Differentially attractive sites are largely five for tagged Musca domestica. a matter of the degree of attractivity MEAT I which ranges from the extreme of a site ms- I Pout.- PACKING' RI_\DER- wills copious attrahents to one without N TACL' I HOG THY UN- LETTUCE ING (MILLS) i FARM RANCH CERN DUMP PL1NT attrahents. In these tests, the sites which 0 1-1 1 I 86 71 75 81 I 17 yielded the greatest fly captures also 1.2-4 s 71 47 36 52 30 yielded the maximum numbers of tagged s e-1 7 o is a la s flies. The fact that certain attractive 4 8-5 0 IB 0 13 4 0 f 3' s 2 0 6 0-7.1 4 0 sites, which frequently are localized in- 7 2—s s ; 6 0 0 0 I 0 stead of dispersed,furnish more incitation to flies than do other sites thereby leads to recommendation would yield not only ef- a distortion of the basic randomness of fective control of house flies but also dispersion. Likewise, if in close proximity would be more economical by preventing to any given site there are numerous simi- the unnecessary expenditure of funds in larly attractive satellite areas, it is con- these outlying zones. This recommen<la- ceivahle that the degree of movement Lion is made, notwithstanding the cvi- beyond this general locale would be re- deuce that copious sources of fly produc- tarded. Lion 2 to 3 miles from a city have been Barriers such as mountains, river, etc., shown to cause fly problems within that serve to inhibit migration of certain ani- community. Such incidences represent mals and presumably could do likewise the exception rather than the general rule with flies. The value or influence of "bar- and the writers believe community con- riers" is difficult to assay. In the present trol operations should be based on the tests, the dry bed of the Salt River ap- latter principle, not the former. geared to discourage northward move- As has been indicated (School & meat from Lhe rendering plant,yet south- Siverly),4 the common characteristic of fly ward dispersion from the meat packing dispersion is a basic randomness of move- concern was not significantly different ment from each point of contact. Upon from that which occurred to the north. this basic tendency for randomized dis- Preferential movement is an end prod- persion are superimposed five conditions uct of differentially attractive sites or factors which modify or influence the Whenever Lhe distribution of fly-attrac- pattern of dispersion. Live points within an area provides a pre- p. Population pressure ponderance of favored locations in any 2 Geographical rly attractive sites one direction, the randomized pattern of V 3. barriers dispersion becomes warped in that direc- 4 Preferential movement Lion (Table 4). 5. Inherent tendency of fl3 to disperse Aside from the external factors which Population pressure is a term commonly influence fly movement, apparently there employed to indicate that a greater nuin- exists within the physiological makeup of ber of individuals inhabit a given local ion the house fly an inherent tendency to than it can support in regard Loathe neces- wander. The exodus of flies from certain sary prerequisites for existence. On this sites where population pressure is lacking basis, the presence of sufficient breeding leads one to this surmise. Thus, in loca- and feeding media at a site to support lions where, from man's viewpoint, flies 5,000 flies when more than 5,000,000 are should tend to tarry, a certain portion of present will lead to extreme competition the populations still departs for what ap- which sooner or later forces a greater pear to be less desirable locations. number of specimens to depart.from that When Lhe data from these experiments site than would occur if only 5,000 flies or arc considered, together with field obser- less were present. With the present data vations and with findings by other work- (Table 1), the proportionately greater ers, one arrives at this concept and ex- number of captures al the outlying sites of planation of fly dispersion. Initially it can the hog farm and rendering plant releases be assumed that each newly emerged can serve as examples of excesvve popula- adult fly possesses a certain capacity for tion pressure at the liberation points; the longevity and for the performance of reverse is true of the lettuce clump and the other life functions The extent to which meat packing concern. these capacities are utilized is contingent 838 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 47, No. 5 upon the environmental conditions pres- in the expenditure of this flight capacity ent in the general area where the adult within a much shorter distance.' As a re- fly is produced. A second point is that suit,the threat to a community of external similar to any given biological population, problem sites becomes largely a matter as the individual components of a fly popu- to whether or not the flight potential can lation disperse around a mean with ref- be siphoned off before substantial in- erence to longevity, size, developmental filtration to the city occurs. period, and other characteristics. Thus SL`MMARY.—Simultaneous release of some individual females may lay a maxi- radioactive dyed Musca domestica from mum number of eggs, some a minimum, five problem sites in the Phoenix,Arizona, but the majority of the female population area revealed that the flies from three will have an egg production rate between sites readily infiltrated into the city itself. the minimum and maximum rates of Two sites were on the periphery of the fecundity. If this approach is now applied community, the third 0.5 mile distant. to fly dispersion, one concludes that a The sites which produced minimum in- small percentage of flies will be endowed filtration were 1.8 and 2.0 miles from the with capacities for movement beyond municipality. that characteristic of the mass population. From 59 to 81 per cent of the marked The same will also be true for minimum flies recovered were recaptured within 1 dispersion. In applying these deductions mile of the release points; 86 to 94 per to the available data, it is obvious that cent within 2.3 miles. some individual house flies possess the Maximum recovery of marked flies at ability to move between points separated nonrelease-point sites occurred on the by 5 to 20 miles. It is likewise apparent fourth day after liberation. At the release that fly movement is essentially a mean- sites, maximum recovery was on the first dering from one site to another. As a con- postrelease day. sequence, to arrive at a point 1 mile from While house flies are capable of moving the site of origin, the fly undoubtedly 5 to 20 miles, available evidences indicate travels a distance far in excess of 1 mile. that the dispersion capacity of the mass How far is purely in the realm of conjec- population is expended within 0.5 to 2.0 ture. In a previous paper,' the conserva- miles because of the randomized, recipro- tive estimate of 15 miles of travel during cal type of meandering which character- the fly existence was given. izes house fly movement. Thus, by piecing together the available One mile is the recommended distance data and observations, it is apparent that to which fly control operations should be house flies possess an initial energy capac- extended outside of most communities. ity for movement on the order of 10 to 20 miles. However, the compensatory A crude simile would be an automobile with a fixed supply nature of their meandering from attrac- of gasoline—in the country, maximum point-to-point mileage could atined, in the , the mileage v tive site to attractive site usually results greatlybe re taduced with the same citygasoline consumption.coered would be LITERATURE CITED Bishopp, F. C. and Laake, E. W., 1921, Dispersion of flies by flight Jour. Agr. Res. 21(10): 729-66. Lindquist,A.W.,Yates,W.W.,and Hoffman,R.A.1951,Studies of the flight habits of three species of flies tagged with radioactive phosphorus.Joust. ECON. ENT.44(3):397-400. Parker, R. E. 1916. Dispersion of Musca domestica (L.) under city conditions in Montana JOUR. ECON. ENT.9(3):325-54. Quarterman, K. D., Willis Mathis, and J. W. Kilpatrick. 1954a. urban fly dispersal in the area of Savannah, Georgia.Joust. ECON. ENT 47(3)• 405-12. Quarterman, K. D., J W Kilpatrick, and Willis Mathis. 1954b. Fly dispersal in a rural area near Savannah, Georgia.Joun ECON ENT 47(3):413-9. Schoof, H. F., and Mail, G. A 1953. The dispersal habits of Phormza regina, the black blowfly, in Chaileston, West Virginia Joun. ECON. ENT 46(2): '258-62. Schoof,H.F.,Siverly,R.E.,and Jensen,J.A.1952,House fly dispersion studies in metropolitan areas. Joust. EcoN. ENT.45(4): 675-83. Yates, W. W. Lindquist, A. W., and Butts, J. S. 1952, Further studies of dispersion of flies tagged with radioactive phosphoric acid.JOUR ECON ENT.45(3): 547-8. Reprinted from the JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY Vol 47, No. 5, pp. 830-838, October 1954 r..J$ E i'1v(-O ESPC Technik.,�,.,1 Release NUMBER 035501 -/ 11/14/75 NATIONAL PESTr CONTROL ASSOCIATION, inc. DATE QQ 8150 Leesburg Pike • Suite 1100 O Vienna, Virginia 22180 • (703) 790-8300 1l) aI cuz CLUSTERING FLIES a) s c E zc") ,,,,vvrxyl.40 - ._ U .' .• flt♦a 1 tt .‘ *.‘ W. ‘I ''''' cex, - ^�� £, } • .r..a • $ "` "-b Adult cluster and face flies are a problem in residential and commercial buildings in early spring and fall. Cluster fly larvae are parasitic on earthworms while face fly larvae de- velop in fresh cow manure. Neither fly is attracted to food but may soil wallpaper, paint, or other resting surfaces. They are annoying as they buzz about windows during warm days or are attracted to lights at night. Control consists of exclu- sion where possible and chemical treatment. THIS RELEASE SUPERSEDES TRs 2-54 AND 13-59 . */ In preparation for insertion into the forthcoming "Ecyclopedia of Struc- tural Pest Control" n (ESPC) , a new numbering system is being used in this and all future TRs. This system is explained on ESPC page number 021006 in the Association Affairs mailed with this TR. Unless Otherwise Stated, This Bulletin Is For The Information Of Members Only—File For Reference ESPC O355O2 THE CLUSTER FLY DISTRIBUTION Cluster flies, Pollenia rudis (F. ) are common in Southern Canada, North- eastern and Northcentral United States. They occasionally occur as far south as Northern Florida. DESCRIPTION Adult cluster flies are dark grey to blackish, slightly larger than the common house fly, and have sucking mouthparts. The thorax lacks obvious striping. Newly emerged adults have distinctive yellow, tawny or golden hair on the back, behind the head and around the base of the wings. These hairs are often light colored in older specimens. The abdomen has mottled light and dark grey areas. Whenever at rest , these flies appear narrow in outline be- cause of the habit of overlapping the two wings scissor-fashion (see Figure 1) . s%, rqpk t1 a A FIGURE 1: Adult Cluster Fly LIFE HISTORY Overwintering adults emerge from their hiding places in the spring when , the air temperature reaches about 50°F. It is at this time that they are a nuisance as they buzz about lights and windows and are the cause for customer inquiries. Adult flies feed on early spring flowers, sap or decaying fruits. As the daytime temperature increases, females are fertilized and begin to lly eggs when the temperature reaches about 80°F. Eggs are laid singly in cre- vices in the soil and hatch in three to five days. Larvae seek out earthworms in which they develop for periods of two to three weeks. When larval growt-Z is completed, pupation occurs in the soil. The pupal period lasts normally from one and one-half to two weeks but may last as long as six weeks, depen- ding upon environmental conditions. There are from three to four fenerat_oas per year. HABITS During summer, adult:, feed on flowering plants and plant ;lids. By; early fall adults of the last generation have emerged and seek shelter on cool days (below 50°F) . Their search for protected hibernating quarters is probably an instinctive protective measure against such predators as birds. Such sites are usually concealed, generally inaccessible and in locations which are seldom disturbed. In rural areas, cluster flies can be found under debris , in tree holes or in crevices . In urban arcaG , buildings provide the most suitable shelter arel. Common places for hibernation seem to be in attics, wall voids, and ibcu, window frames. Other recorded ce.reats in- clude: behind pictures , Iraperies or bascnoards; under furniture or edges ESPC 035503 of carpets; within made-up beds , closets , chimneys, electrical outlets and junction boxes. Wintertime activity of cluster flies largely is controlled by the tem- perature of their hiding places. Below 50°F they are seldom active. As the temperature increases they wander from their hibernating areas to nearby surfaces where they may be observed walking about aimlessly or flying weakly. A few active flies can be found on the south side of houses nearly every warm sunny day throughout the winter when the sun' s heat reaches their hiding place. On the other hand, during cold windy days cluster flie3 may be active if they are hibernating on the lee side of poorly insulated houses . In this case the warm air of the interior is drawn through the voids and crevices which are used by the cluster flies . FACE FLIES DISTRIBUTION The face fly, Musca autumnalis De Geer, is found from Maine to Oregon. It ranges no further south than Northern Georgia. DESCRIPTION In general appearance, conformation, size and color, the face fly is so similar to the house fly that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. Differences in habits are the most useful means of distinguishing be- tween the two species. LIFE HISTORY The female face fly lays her eggs in cow manure that is less than two hours old. After the eggs hatch, the larvae develop very rapidly, usually within three to five days . When full grown, the yellowish maggots move into adjacent soil or to the drier parts of the manure and pupate. The pupal pe- riod lasts for five to seven days , after which the adult flies emerge. The adult flies feed on secretions around the eyes, nostrils and mouths of live- stock. They suck available liquids and irritate the animals. Nostrils , mouths and other moist surfaces are also attractive. Fresh blood from wounds, scratches or bites of other insects is eagerly sought by the ac.ults. They are unable to draw blood themselves, as they have sucking mouthparts like those on houseflies . HABITS The importance of face flies as a homeowner pest involves their habit of hibernating indoors . The problem appears to be focused in rur•11 and suburban area, where livestock i; present . Even though the customer may not have horses or cattle on his premises , adjacent ranches and farms may contribute to recur- rent nuisance populations . Tn the fall when temperature drops below 53°F, the adult flies begin to seek protected places where they can overwinter. They will attempt to enter houses or other heated buildings and garages. They can enter ter^:gh cracks and hole- in siding, window weight pulley holes and unscreened louvc.ra. During esld weather usually they hide in attics and between the walls of h .iI .i:iga . :.wring late ..all, winter and early spring, face f,Tes become a is: _ .1 they lvE' their hiding places anc move into heo' ed rooms. On w . m .ay; th, / congregate at windows , trying to get outside th • house. ESPC 035504 CONTROL Control of clustering flies requires considerable ingenuity, imagination and persistence. Although control at the breeding site generally is recognized as _he ideal way of preventing infestations of many species of flies , this is hardly practical with cluster or face flies around the home. Elimination of the earthworm hosts of the cluster fly over a wide area would be impractical. While it is Jesirable to keep cluster flies out of structures by cloaing<open- ings, cracks and crevices, this procedure is quite often difficult and imprac- tical. Chlordane or dimethoate (Cygon) may be applied as an exterior wall ' surface treatment to cracks and crevices where flies may alight or crawl into the structure. When they are encountered as large groups in accessible areas as in attics, it is a rel-..tively simple matter to direct a heavy amount of a contact spray on the group. Individuals which are wetted will be killed. Un- fortunately, clustering flies geldem accumulate in these large exposed masses so that it is usually necessary t search .'dt all the obscure places in a structure such as pulley holes , cracks , imperfections in siding, entrances of pipes and conduits,, electrical switches, and junction baxes ; in .act, an, crevices thr,augh which the flies may squeeze. In t-reating concealed areas as in the voids behind a win,,ow pulley, either a fine mi..t or a dust should be employed for the purpose-' of reaching all parts of the void. Ar' ss otherwise inaccessible to dusted or sprayed material:, may be treated with insecticides , such as DDYP, which release cuff is i ent penetrating vapors. Sy ra.;s indicated for fly control in TR 4-75 "NPCA Insect Control Committee Inseoticide Recom- mendations" may be used 1 r the above purpoc. . The fact that these insects hibernate in inaccessible places in large numbers and that they c. : 'lot al: c .^_serge at any one _Ja"ticuiar time or pl ace makes quite uncertain the degree 'f control which can be attained in a single treatment. 'Iuarantee of :ati sf ac t ory control is questionable and guarantee of complete elimination :._ .h any ens t-r atr.ant is . .,olhardy. In residential situations it is best for a pest control operator to provide as complete ser- vice as poss;bl, in eliminating : lie; 'hat may have accumulated in the house ind then recommend , ome ma •, ial lab -led for homeowner use, such a - pyre-ihrum aerosol or pros. urisce spray, with which the occasional vagran, fly can be controlled. Resist rose to insecticides is not known to be a fact . in cluster or face fly control. Photograph on Page One taken from :•;arch 1961 issue of The Sanitarian. Figure 1 illustration from Publication 937 : "Control of the Cluster Fly" by C. S. .1acNay, Entomology Division, Ottawa, Canada. R R rZ#L,HiARD 0. 4AYE.S 44§4„,, REPRINT NUMBER , l u I 252 ->, urmshed by -- Commune able Disease Center :V. ' Technical D velopment Laboratories , P O Bo 769, Savannah,Ga. ow Far Do rr„' O a ,„,,:,. ,:,:.,....... . ,1,1,,:„± „. , . 0, -smut , a Flies Fly' : :-. ,.:.--...---vi,-..:::,• k iAiiiq 3 S bw J n and what effect does fli9 ht w ..,,,, ill,.(: - ,,„„ig:i .pattern have on their control? I a lipby DR. HERBERT F. SCHOOF , Chief, Biology Section, Communicable Disease Center, Savannah, Georgia k._ ,. HOW FAR does a fly fly? Like powdered chalk, paint pigments, paper or toweling. The acetone many other queries on insect or dyes. Unfortunately, detection dissolved the dye, the color of biology, the question is one to of specimens tagged by these which was readily discernible on which a direct answer is expected. methods was relatively time con- the white paper background. A reply of 1, 5, or 10 miles finds suming and tedious. Little fur- The flight habits of the dif- the questioner well satisfied. Un- ther work in the field was done ferent species of flies can be fortunately, in discussing this from 1921 until the advent of evaluated from several aspects: (or almost any other) aspect of radioisotopes. The latter provided speed of movement, maximum dis- fly biology, an unqualified answer a positive means of marking flies persal, and the movement of the usually is misleading or false which subsequently could be mass population. since no consideration is given to readily detected in trap catches. With reference to speed of dis- the differences in response which The availability of this new tool persal, studies by several investi- exist among various species or led to a renewed interest in fly gators indicate that 41. domestica which may occur in an individual dispersal, studies being conducted can move to distances of 4.0 to species under varying seasonal or by investigators in Ai izona, 6.3 miles within 24 hours (T.1,11, climatic conditions. Oregon, West Virginia, a n d 1). These records reflect dispersal In this article, discussion shall Georgia. of a limited number of specimens. be limited chiefly to the house In these recent tests, the gener- Data more representative of the fly Musca domestica and to the al procedures have consisted of movement of the house fly popu- blow flies of the genera Phormia, tagging the flies with P-32 by lation as a whole are shown in Phoenicia, and Callitroga. These feeding the adult specimens with Figure 2 which indicates the flies are the ones generally found milk-honey or sugar solutions (1 cumulative percentage of stations most frequently within communi- millicurie of P-32 per liter of positive for radioactive house ties and in homes throughout the milk) for a 24-hour period (Fig. flies at the 4.8 to 5.9 mile interval country. Other species, such as 1). In most instances, wild-caught over a 120-hour period. the stable fly, lesser house fly, flies were employed; when such Speed of movement data for and fruit flies, may be of im- were scarce, use was made of other species are shown in Table portance in certain areas but, laboratory - reared specimens. 2. Based on 48-hour recoveries, except for limited studies on After release, the marked flies Phormia regina apparently dis- Drosophila, information on their were recovered by baited traps dispersal is meager. distributed at various distance The dispersal characteristics of intervals from the liberation site. TABLE ONE flies have been one of man's con- In several studies ((Quarterman Maximu,ni Speed of Dispersal of Musca - cerns ever since workers realized et al. (1954a,b), Schoof and � domestica Based on Recaptures within 24 Hours after Release. the role such insects could play Mail (1953), Schoof and Siverly in the transmission of disease. (1954b) ) flies were liberated Reference State Distance Early workers ((Zetek (1914), simultaneously from two or more No (area) (miles) Hindle and Merriman (1914), sites, the radioactive specimens (1) Texas (rural) 6.3 Parker (1916), and Bishopp and from each site being dusted with (5) Georgia (urban) 5.2 Laake (1921) ) uncovered much a different dye. Detection of the information on the dispersal radioactive flies was by means of (6) Georgia (rural) 5.0 habits of domestic flies, using a laboratory or field monitor (3) Oregon (rural) 4.0 specimens marked by means of equipped with a thin-walled Gei- (10) Arizona (urban) 5.0 ger tube. Specimens secondarily 1 From the Communicable Disease Center, marked by dye were identified perses more rapidly than all Bureau of State Services, Public Health Service, U S Department of Health, by pipetting a drop of acetone species of flies studied. Within a Education, and Welfare, Savannah, on the specimen placed on filter 24-hour period, Musca domestica Georgia L moves to distances comparable to TABLE TWO those traveled by the common blow fly species; but during the Maximum Speed of Dispersal of Blow Flies and Other Species. second 24-hour interval it showed Reference Distance (Miles) only a slight increase in the dls Species No. State (area) 24 Hrs. 48 Hrs. tance traveled (i.e., from 5 2 to 7.6 miles, Quarterman et a1. Phormia regina (12) Oregon (rural) — 16.5 1954a; from 5.0 to 5.6 miles, (1) Texas (rural) 3.0 11.0 Schoof and Siverly, 1954b). Callitroga macellaria (1) " 8.0 10.0 When maximum distance tray- ff (5) Georgia (urban) 2.8 7.2 eled is the criterion used, it is Phaenicia sericata (5) — 3 5 evident that individual specimens Phaenicia cuprina (5) — 5.0 are capable of considerable flight. Sarcophagi bullata (5) 1.8 — M. domestica has been captured at distances of 7.3 to 20.0 miles from release sites (Table 3), man, the dispersal of the mass TABLE THREE whereas recoveries of certain of the fly population rather than species of blow flies are recorded that of a few individuals is the Maximum dispersal distance of Musca (Fig. 3). domestics from 15 to 28 miles ( g• significant criterion. Thus, an- Phormia regina apparently roams noyance and disease transmission Reference State Distance No. (area) (miles) over considerable area since re- by flies in communities and, there coveries beyond 10 miles do not fore, control efforts, are governed (1) Texas (rural) 13.1 represent isolated captures alone. largely by the movement and (5) Georgia (urban) 7.6 Comparative dispersal data on habits of the population mass. (6) Georgia (rural) 8.3 P. regina and M. domestica for Unfortunately, in many cases un (10) Arizona (urban) 7.3' the same test (Table 4) indicate due stress is placed on the fact (12) Oregon (rural) 20 0 the greater range of the former that one or two specimens are re species. Only 3% of the house captured 15 to 20 miles from the Limit of trapping area flies recovered were captured at release site. Thus, the generaliza- or beyond 4.0 miles whereas 13% tion is made that the flight range of P. regina were trapped between of the species is of that magni- mile zone than in the outlying 4 and 28 miles, more than 8% tude. However, from the control intervals must be taken into ac- being retrieved at or beyond 11 standpoint, the wanderings of a count. Moreover, even with an miles. few individuals are of minor equal number of the traps per In relation to the effect upon significance compared to t h e distance interval, the area served movement of the bulk of the by each trap in the outer intervals 3Lai population. This point always would have been far greater than must be kept in mind when con- that of the intervals closer to 2 sidering any type of dispersal the release site. A certain degree data. of adjustment can be obtained by F. analyzing the data on the basis W 1 Cumulative percentage recover of the average number of flies per v ies of M. domestica within 1 mile, trap in each distance zone. How- a: a range from 55 to 96; within 2 ever, in multiple release studies at 24 48 72 96 120 miles, from 77 to 100 (Table 5). ( Phoenix, Arizona, the percentage HOURS AFTER RELEASE However, in considering the data recoveries of tagged house flies Fig. 2—Speed of movement of M. domes- for most of these tests, the fact (based on the average number of tiro based on cumulative percentages of positive stations at distance of 4 8 to 5.9 that a greater number of traps specimens per trap) in the 0.2-1.1 miles and 24 to 120 hour period (107 traps usually was operated in the 1.0 mile zone and in the 1.2 to 2.3 mile zone were found to be similar. ��PH\\ORMIA REGINA (l2)�\��\\��\\\\1 even though the ratios of the CALLITROGA MLLARI (tN *(I) number of traps for these two zones varied from 1:3 to 1:1 and PHAENICIA CUPRINA (5) 2:1. In one study where the OPHYRA AENESCENS*' (I) in 1 OPHYRA LEUCOSTOMA maximum distance trapped was PHAENICIA SER1CATA (3) W FANNIA 1.0 mile and the number of trap o. PUSIO* (5)(51 `^ \,' \\ SARCOPHAGA SUETA*(4) sites per unit area for the first PHAENICIA CAERULEVIRIDIS* (4) and second half mile zones was SARCOPHAGA BULLATA*• (4) approximately equal, the percent MUSCINA STABULANS (4) ages of flies recovered in the 0.1 o i 1 1 I I 8 1 I 4 ' to 0.5 mile zone was 52 compared 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 "' MILES to 48 in the 0.6 to 1.0 mile zone. When the criterion used is the *Represented only a small percentage of the total flies released in these tests. percentage of positive stations or Fig. 3—Maximum dispersal of blow flies and other species. (3) = Reference number. positive collections per distance zone, there is similar decline in the motivating factors behind which governs fly movement. Al- recovery rates with the increase such dispersal? Parker (1916) though a surplus of flies in rela- I- in distance. (e.g., in an experi- aptly described the house fly as tion to feeding and breeding ment in which 342,000 house flies a migrating insect, the movement sites (or population pressure) were released, the percentages of of which is partly instinct and may accelerate dispersal to other positive stations at distance in- partly due to its response to areas, an abundance of attractive tervals of 0.1 - 1.1, 1.2 - 2.3, stimuli from breeding and feeding sites for a minimum population I 2.4 - 3.5, 3.6 - 4.7, 4.8 - 5.9, and sites. These traits together with does not necessarily prevent an 6.0 - 7.1 miles" were 96, 92, 48, the influence of population pres- exodus of specimens from that 37, 27, and 10, respectively). sure and geographic barriers area. In many instances, flies dis- Movement of certain blow flies make up the composite force perse from a location despite an is more extensive than that of 31. domestica as is depicted by the data from tests in which the trap- TABLE FOUR ping patterns for both house flies Comparative Recoveries of Phormia regina and Musca domestica at Specific and species of blow flies were Distances from 4 to 28 miles.* similar (Table 6). Phormia re- No. Specimens Recovered at gina apparently disperses more Miles widely than Callitroga macellaria. Total Although, in one instance, the Species 4 I 8 10-15 i 15-20 20-28 latter species showed a dispersal I pattern similar to 111. domestica, P. regina in general it is considered to 1606 45 11 95 52 4 roam over a greater area than M. domestica the house fly. Fly movement as presented by 1502 42 4 1 1 0 the preceding data represents the dispersal of the specimens from *Based on data from Yates, et al. (1952) one point to another. Where flies are recovered at maximum dis- TABLE FIVE tances within 24 hours, it can be Cumulative percent recovery of marked house flies. presumed that such flight was relatively direct. However, with 'c,Cumulative Percent Recovery the specimens subsequently re- - Miles captured, information is lacking Reference No. State (area) 1 0 2 0 3.0 in regard to their secondary movement between the release (1) Texas (rural) 91 94 99 point and the site of capture. (3) Oregon (rural) 94 97 98 Some inkling as to the mode of (12) 89 93 97 dispersal involved was obtained from a study wherein radioactive (5) Georgia (urban) 96 100 — specimens (31. domestica and P. (5) 66 77 85 sericata) released at one point (4) (rural) 55 84 92 were recaptured at three separate (7) Arizona (urban) 88 98 100a sites and then marked with dif- (7) 82 95 98 .— ,dyes, released, and g (10) 68 86 93 captured for the second time. The results of this experiment (Schoof a Maximum distances at which traps were set and Siverly, 1954a) clearly dem- onstrated that fly movement is relatively haphazard, the dis- persal of the specimens from each TABLE SIX Comparative dispersion of M. domestica versus C. macellaria and P. regina within release site being of a random the same trapping pattern. pattern. Consequently, some flies Percent of Tagged Flies Recovered returned to the same site from Ref. Species (No Distance Intervals (miles) which they had departed several No. specimens) 0.1-1.0 1.1-3 0 3 1-5.0 5 1-7.0 >7.1 days previously. From the studies made of fly (6) M. domestica (317) 54.8 36.8 6.3 1.5 0.6 dispersion, it is apparent that C. macellaria (91) 33.2 50.4 131 2.0 — different species have the ability (5) M. domestica (27) 96.0 4.0 0 — — to move to relatively great dis C. macellaria (56) 17.8 80.3 1.9 — — tances at rapid rates. What are (5) M. domestica (96) 65.4 19.8 9.4 4.1 1.2 C. macellaria (274) 40.5 48.1 9.8 0 5 1.1 (12) M. domestica (1496) 88.9 6.2 3.7 — 0.6 2 At these distances, respectively, the num- P. regina (1506) 34.5 28.7 26.6 - 10.1 ber of traps was 71, 75, 121, 148, 107. and 56 1 apparent excess of feeding and are detected and copious produc- What is true for fly control at breeding opportunities therein. tion sites lie 2 to 5 miles distant, the individual problem site, is, 'Whether flies move with or one should not ascribe the diffi- likewise, applicable to community against the prevailing wind cur- culties to these sources without fly abatement. The extent to rents is not obvious from these first considering the condition of which a municipality extends its tests with radioactive specimens, the breeding grounds and the na- control operations beyond the none of the data indicating any ture of the area intervening be- city boundary must be based on preferential movement as to wind tween it and the problem site. conditions in the outlying zones. direction. Wind as a means of the When this intermediate zone con- In some instances, abatement dissemination of attractant odors tains numerous attractant sites, measures 0.5 to 1.0 mile around would aprear to be of greater it, in all probability, is "absorb- the periphery of the municipality consequence than as a factor of ing" the population dispersing will suffice but in all cases the I physically stimulating or inhibit- from the breeding location before characteristics of these peripheral I ing fly movement. the flies can reach the problem site areas should be assessed as to fly To summarize the facts of fly in sufficient numbers to be of an- production and attractivity be- dispersal, it can be said that: noyance. This fact is apparent fore deciding on the outer limit - (a) Flies can move rapidly from since the random dispersion of of operations. With blow flies, site to site; flies from each attractant site re- particularly Phormia regina, con- (b) Overall movement of the popu- sults in 50% of a given population trol treatments at abattoirs, cation is from 1 to 2 miles (Musca do- mestica); rendering plants.at any one site moving in the op- (c) Dispersal from each site is ran- posite direction to that taken by problem sites 3 to 4 miles beyond dom in pattern; the balance of the population. In the city may be necessary. (d) Specimens congregate in areas contrast to this condition, a or sites having suitable feeding or Literature Cited breeding sites; minimum of attractants in the (e) Blow flies generally migrate intermediate zone and a decrease Bishopp, P.on of es by C., and E W. L aaFlig ke. 1921 Dfarther and more rapidly than house in the availability of breeding Research XXI(20) 711-766 flies. Hindle, E., and G. Merriman 1914 The media at the production source Range of Flight of Musca domestica. J How can such data be utilized could easily cause an infiltration Hyg 14 23-45 for control purposes? In any con- Lindquist, A. W., W. W. Yates, Robert A of flies into a section of the city Hoffman, and Joseph S Butts 1951 trol activity, fly annoyance must Studies of the Flight Habits of Three 2 to 3 miles distant. Species of Flies Tagged with Radioactive always relate to the source of the Phosphorus J Econ Entomol.44(3) 397- insect production. 'Unfortunately, In all tests on fly movement, it 400 Parker, R R 1916 Dispersion of Musca the general reaction to knowledge has been obvious that traps beat- domestica Linnaeus under City Conditions in Montan." J Econ. Rntomol 9('1) 321- tissea flies can move to a distance ed at sites generally attractive 354 of 1 to 2 miles leads to the con- to flies yielded the greatest num- Quarterman, K. D., Willis Mathis, and J. W. Kilpatrick. 1954a Urban Fly Dispersal in elusion that the cause of any fly ber of radioactive specimens. the Area of Savannah, Georgia .7 Econ Entomol 47(3) 405-412 problem must be at a distant Since attractivity of a site to Quarterman, K. D., J. W. Kilpatrick, and Oint. Except for a few instances, flies is the key as to whether Willis Mathis. 1951b Fly Dispersal in p h or a Rural Area near Savannah, Georgia this concept is a fallacy. A sud- not a fly invades and remains at J Econ Entomol 47(3) 413-19 School, H F, R E Siverly, and J. A. Jen- den build-up of house flies in a a location,the sanitational pro-sen.1952 House Fly Dispersion Studies restaurant should be evaluated cedures followed in an area or at 45(Metropolitan )is s 6san areas J Eeon Entomol. first in strict relation to sani- a food-handling establishment will Schoof, H. F. and G. A Mail 1953 His- pet sal Habits of Phormia regina in tation conditions in that and ad- determine whether or not a fly Charleston, West Virginia J Econ Entomol joining blocks. Frequently, t h e problem will develop therein. The Schoof, H. F., a s and R. E. Siverly. 1954a source is nearby refuse in some soundness of this tenet was in- urban Fe Dispersion Studies with Special Reference to Movement Pattern of Musca instances in the kitchen or im- dicated in a study by Waldrop, domestica Am J Trop Med Hyg 3(3) 539 54 mediate environs of the eating et al. House flies released on School, H. F., and R E. Siverly. 1954b Multiple Release St idies on the Dispersion establishment itself. If the annoy- both banks of the Rio Grande of Musca domestics at Phoenix, Arizona J Econ Entomol 47(5) 830-838 ance is caused by blow flies, the River between t 1i e adjoining Waldrop, R H., R. Peel, and H. F. Schoof. same procedure should be follow- cities of Laredo, Texas, and 1958 Fly Movement olProgram Study Shows Ben - fits of Control Modern Sens- ed, although with these species Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, were re- tation and Bldg Maint 10(9) 19, 43-45 g p Yates, W. W., Arthur W. Lindquist, and there is a greater chance that the covered principally in the latter Joseph S. Butts. 1952 Further Studies of _ Dispersion of Flies Tagged with Radio- annoyance may not be in the city which was characterized by active Phosphoric Acid J Eeon Entomol ---' 45(3) 547-8 immediate vicinity. a lower level of environmental Zetek, J. 1914 Dispersal of Musca domes. Clew Linn Ann Ent s°° Am, VII(1 Where no nearby breeding sites sanitation. 70-72 • Reprinted from the April 1959 issue of PEST CONTROL magazine A ""'I' I; N U A N C I,; R I,. C 0 U APPLICANT : ROLANDA FEEDS, ..-dC. TIME : 7:uu PM DOCK ETV/ 78-21 f. ,. DATL : REQUEST : APRIL 25, 1978 SUP, CHICKEN MANURE DEHYDRATION FAC. I - NAME ADDRESS 76iii64 qCA itteLli pum4cgt,,9 r u0)_ i ) . _ 8.;:, f,r, )-#3 23.0x 45.6 . -/-74-e... I a ,,,,-c-c-AL,(L-al,_„ X;;:-- A,c4 a( � Q f- X, ///� 10 i R /�--- 11-4A4 X11 Y 4;Ake-._ 7&4L1 J070 � � 74 �, �,,,u 1,1,-L, C9 36 f,� / 6-60 7 P_v_ee-fy /. 4,.e",ht-,,, 6-6 . (' ' gip a/tt,t I ‘ia:le,g; R O a e 7 7/Azd.4 ) ' "it' -/-e-t, , , ', &,-,/ 1-6"I &-e,;.- c- I/, V4452-k P1 o 130-7( a / 7 d/7.e _ .7_-7e2,- . C <7 D /0,/ , C� /de-e. FD 63/,-(;r7ti/c- e_. n7:64 _ I(o,?9 Q/4 A/6. ,3/i/zee , (7w .._ .. -dq,t,, , alevite , ,346i Ythil&z.<7 d, 5C 'e//,(_,vhciot_l - . 62,....1 9.a 6 i. ,i).e.zi g.a 6. 74,40- .), - ?CCP ci 2-- �� 5L/ y9 �� y� ,6-2/,..? ?f-fc, 6--/ -?-d--t-e-i_.-he A 7, -- 11 4 c;)(2,? )1i A-C11, -&-d{ AR��-✓u'E� °-'t i �— . -1-2,,,-/ � �v v� i -11c_0-41-'12-' �?� 6-ems 62, --, j f 3. ---) ALe _-- ktaen=t c /c ,-/ni- -,_ (72g-eNv ,.-.a e O di lc /Y.a.af,.. . i-,-.2 _ . _...7:7---e - G,,,,,O 2t- -Z.._/ .el'.e/-=-?-0.-•-- A 6 t 1 P cA /b x . b 1 Lpoz 7 (A, cdo`ts, 14,,t,_e3L 7, c-,4., )2 Ca cn;. 47/1. 7 kes , �c. .aaa. irn,ati, 2Y246 0ez.). ,V9 (,17211,2i/5 (' . a s,) !, , �te a G -3 x./71e, //' -, ‘- . ,477 67.,...-z_ ,V‘g 4V-ed 6 AW /6 ///ap__,,,ele ., 6- d O \ \Sc)n - 1°\ S ' five. . \-\. 1l., -(\ ��-kr\ r ,, _ (\. ..,- , , C-_- \,---V-1 Sc--).&.\. 4.` ID,tAs,. 1 6(1,--\'- - / t Li a--E1 . / / A ""1' I; N I) A N C I; R I', Co I) APPLICANT : — -- -- TIME : D0CKETI e..DATL : REQUEST : I N mss' ADDRESS ZOAM././ -A .VWM; /Si Z lif, ./ 6 61,. ..i....,_ I. • I r i_-,- 1 AX '76 ,ePeiVe5hoeec, Coco A%. `1( .Q,\ \3c, / 6 ,51 i;,,wN, \,,,,n _..1 6777V Coo A/Pp X4,12dy-e 7: ..---7 . 7. .__3'.7-&, .0,,,L7(7 e ._. 11-4 -4.- ------ :-76T--- z-.4 7 ,7 Ff7 _ ,e41,7./Aa 1.z) 1599/ /.r)(Pi -</// ':�u 474) 41 Z-5:0497 1 2 7 ?Li,,,, 47 6-(-1 0 -:0 c le / /d19/4,77%- cZker 4, (g-- g4sa ) ' ' ddr AP) ,6 e--e 36 J 16.1'-x,,4, r',,,/ - (To R &- ,t. 4i.i "../ii"�..0 a ze a*ci 1;r!-.z,_--,,/ - s, 3 O -. ., -, ) '1,--__a_0--,c_e_..--4-7 r i _a V. /— -. / 2 .s , C n/ -2-e i/ ., 1p-o 8 x 3 5 / 0 '� sic,` w: ;c ' Q C1CL��c��f�GtG �OCF� / /c12nc:Bc,c(j4ini_ dtavx4),‘.eg_az? 6-- --7 ,- --(/5- /1--/Gi/-Npo".._e4y(f-s19 i -81( 0-H4- GI-4-6 4,,wpied �J t 1lJtA L. . ( rid B -6 CS_ "` . / 0 /( — (( y7 (1'(9P \J ,� ; Co . lie L� 7�2-7 /,( 0 / 9 1� G a -i---o k ,/ I )2 / ;q,/ PA ) Loc_ il_h ,/,7z,/vAL-T) L t ,,i Ale& Co � ---...(_..„...,,,,,,,),P(7-e--.0%-/-3 ' ,4).eg- E,-,_t,,,,, --j-ivettA4&2(IY -, D ( 7 �,'c44,g F7 C /°, bse , o/ /e„/r-4 e Di,,,,-„, c,/, . ,44,b („6 ,r,.,/,,, ,,,,9,(_,z 6--y , LI-,-_,,,fro,,lic.,71 /s Lem ,,A -- -- - \ , _ce i Fvye e r —Er,6,1,-)e 7i 7 g S1 - c'o ,1 P CO- .ALI(A /1 0 W • Qin6-1L1 C,--rk. "t•fs.-e -) - /0--- 7116e'qi--6/1) 7'53 e? AM d'• OV 4/1 9.44.1 , ' ) &60,32. i ri}R.td _, / ,_ / zi___(� � ;I% '�-""'` �j `, (,11,y1,7./' ),� AA,(3 /t�/11i��.i - _ ,1/4/`/ .�/(6 u--• -u:-1 , G 1G 7/..''',41:47-z.. , `` /' O1/ /14`7 _ - .4 _,,.,-Z A I'I'I. I CA N'I• : 'I' I t,I k : I)O(:I: I.:'I'11 ' I)A'I'I. : Itl;I)III.;;;'I' . NAP I: I ADDRESS -- -------- - ----- - -- ------------ -' 4- - --.- . _ __ --- - ----_--- //r __, _ ___047,y' / L_- _ /77KK / _z_. ____1,./a42 I I V 1. ..e3 /L/ /4/r3 /' e</f ,e,-- / 1 _ __ ___- — - a 5 -° . - -_ r -u � q 17s /Cc , 7 /z uh - k. . YI cr AP-6171 91,e,- ,1-oz,7/i, I ‘/ 0 --b1/ ;i-e / _,-_,ee-, a.--1,7L-4,22-0-,-2, ex4 e*,74...,W, cN?, .)-7/ 6(.2c,_e_1 /// /74,a(57-7-(1 & a , `7 ' 670 s“ sii . 1I"jc-J . fa a-8, , /ifikiji I_ _( ,„ V ___ w., () .7 -heuzl 7p 7 ziin Pi ? \-"- ,',--,c 144.,E le '7S) ") ?( c/ 6 . Te/ 7'9 den./.,/6t„ - )/1.C am. C„,- ,--5 .3 C eru` /-4(---10/7�1r� St-.' ,;r'f' ____(,-,<V-,<,- --)-;, , e) a / //)-- --/ve_s,&/?,/ �' I _ - J , 3'24/ 5_ 7(0 40g-„5-3 .,2eQ. - \4�R,, �. i ( . ) C� - ,,?�7 . y 7,. ac.,.(_,_,J s� a . 11, 6. /Ta(4,�, / G' 5,?._-14 5/c b)a., //",,'lq e.,5/OL. CO/c. , 9 qcl74 �Z4 f 7 1 I Lc._' v* 0 — lcks,s !�/.,�/ () G�' /z_ /7< iQSaG-/ 1 /1- ----7//1-L/--C---4:°------ --—---21-,) 14-talf ed.b. 4.L_____ Aheaa6 ‘ , }111 06,1 y l "6-)Z Co- Pot 1-t y, 1- c-s� , C0 11 a • , OD 27 ____7'ite-r:7-t . gJ6 6/3 !I li( ' ' IL "er- ' t /i. :5--- Z, Clje,o-e-f-c-' . tt.0_..- ,7 , , liitt,,--7,1 4)- :w4I-,r isO w_ Ow e 4/ .-6 1) -i,f 21-,1 (eo i ' ir,alittie-e- u 5 ,,,_s,_ ,;S:l , i a yz- u) k_sLk_ 92,-__e_-__k_f4-1 I'‘ -t-aQ--- evi• 1 r:i,(-- -- . , 0 ,51',- ' `74 ,_ >. -- .- •• �� -. - _ _. - _•.-__....-,.-...�._-...�..._...r .r r_r__r�"7 -��[?r--sll]2- ifs - A I t I fl I) A it I, I, I i. „ t nPPI. ICAN'I . TIME : 11OCKl':�1� / ' DA I'l'. : Itl?rill 1;:;T . NAffi; I ADDRESS -- - -- - --- -- ------ ----(-4_ ___44I. 4,2 ___ _ __ _ __ ___________ e_ o___. /// i . az, , a 2.4, mcpiRiag -,%/, „Cdt,.____Re64,./ - _v „,,A, (.1,„/ a`5a - *0_,-7.6.41.4,t_..1 , OA . ,d_.,,,..) -2-5---- ?‘ /de et 4;e_„,1„,_, y . - i1/co-t-.} 5 0 -z& at_Rd Ji 53_162„2.,,,v6145cid r.aryti4x, J, - o.-Q-2 (s5 7 6 *La,Cu_ l8 .-L d,-6- - - 4 r 6 g I 1(_ (-) Z L P-6O,/&)-/-- /t.% 4t/o _ - _e_.,t, /F-2— /-z,„„eef41.e_,-,_ eA,- . .r.F77- ‘/ (_ __„.il47. _A.,_ ,i --a‘ is��,� /�7 !-T 0-1(4-2-4C , ax/197 x-7`6/i„s/ 6,/foS-2 2 � A/6,vC I ,4sz_ ) // c ,7 /5 an A14tdd-00 . .3c l i 13 qr Co A k Le✓' C /LIA PL.,-1.-ti'N . /923e: /g5-- //7- 21/�/'-'(2ry C . / -) t9 ”/. 11,0 --e.ict O rcd e7/ 9 1---( G,,L,v., 'f ✓ .° /SY0 /Q/C-4,9U-e ,,o,(150�-- ; y_),,,,,e, 6#' ' ' 7 /,/7 k/. o ziz z/- , //>1!e-eZe-o-7 (7&- •7 % w 7-,- a r - 3 R // Q.,,� I 7: . �.a-Q. ja )3 . 6:),_;„26:),_;„2_.' . j± ci L I _44-z.,c-c2pg,iz---0 ,i, 95/.. e?/)Jza,/ ,,,G2 z -— z 3 1 :AD-144-es---i k 1 BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ] ] AMENDED OF ROLANDA FEEDS , INC. , FOR ] OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDATION ] OF PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL USE PERMIT. ] COMES NOW the Applicant, ROLANDA FEEDS, INC. , by its attorney, Anthony V. Zarlengo, P. C. , in response to notice of the Weld County Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial of Special Use Permit entered on February 7 , 1978, and hereby enters its objection to said recommendation, and submits the following reasons why the proposed Order should not issue: 1 . That prejudicial error was committed by recep- tion of purported evidence outside of the hearing held by the Planning Commission without the presence of counsel or the Ap- plicant which was materially detrimental to the Applicant, to wit : a. ) Weld County Health Department report of alleged violation by Applicant to have occurred January 30 , 1978 ; b . ) Action of the Air Pollution Control Divi- sion of The Colorado Department of Health of February 7, 1978 , which revoked Applicant ' s emission permit . c. ) Letter of January 11 , 1978 to the Plan- ning Commission, purportedly submitted as an official act of the Town of Keenasburg, recommending denial of Special Use Permit to Applicant. 2 . That the action of The Colorado Division of Air Pollution Control revoking Applicant 's emission permit was un- lawful , and Applicant has appealed said revocation to the Dis- trict Court of Weld County in Civil Action No. 29731 . Said action is now pending judicial determination. c . �► 3. That a reason given by the Planning Commission to support its recommendation for denial of the Special Use Permit was a letter of January 11 , 1978, purporting to represent the official position of the Town of Keenesburg; that said letter was not authorized by the Town of Keenesburg; and that consideration of said letter as representing the official posi- tion of the Town of Keenesburg was erroneous and was materially prejudicial against Applicant. 4. That the reception of prejudicial evidence outside the hearing and of prejudicial evidence after the hear- ing was closed on January 17, 1978, was contrary to law, in violation of administrative procedure, and thereby any subse- quent determination by the Planning Commission was void. 5 . That because of the reception of the foregoing prejudicial evidence, the deliberations , discussions and con- siderations by the Planning Commission subsequent to January 17, 1978, when the hearing was closed, were contrary to law and its meetings and recommendation reached thereby were void. WHEREFORE, Applicant requests this Commission to hold a hearing on Applicant 's foregoing Objection To Recommen- dation of Planning Commission, and to reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission.2Nf ONY V. ZARLENGO, P.C. . , ....t.g egis r o N . 3765 Attorn or plic 220 M po er uilding 1554 Cali ornia Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Ph. 629-0574 Address of Applicant: 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg -2- Ate- , - :ECEIVED ;1,-, i 9 I978 Y'f IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No . 29731 ROLANDA FEEDS, INC . , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ) DIVISION OF THE COLORADO ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ) ) Defendant . ) COMES NOW the defendant, Air Pollution Control Division , Colorado Department of Health, by its attorneys J. D. MacFarlane , Attorney General , Hubert A. Farbes , Jr. , Assistant Attorney General, and move the court dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. In support thereof, the defendant files its memorandum brief and states as follows : The Colorado Air Pollution Control Act , the State Administrative Procedure Act , and Regulation No . 3 of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission provide an absolute right to administrative hearing for any person notified of a determination of intent to revoke an (air pollution) Emission Permit. If requested, the administrative hearing must be held prior to any revocation action can become final . C . R. S . 1973 , 25- 7- 112 (4) (d) , (e) , (f) ; 24-4-104(5) , (6) ; and Regulation No. 3 , Section II . H. 3. a ,b . Rolanda Feeds , Inc . , by its attorney , has exercised its right to administrative review and requested an administrative conference (and may subsequently request an administrative hearing) regarding the revocation of Rolanda ' s Emission Permit by the Air Pollution Control Division . The Rolanda k(q\.I C-U\A IS Q 'flag- Y . ) request was made pursuant to the Division ' s notification of intent to revoke , and in accord with C .R. S . 1973 , 25-7-112 (4) (e) , (f) and Regulation No . 3 of the Air Pollution Control Couuuission, Section II H. 3 . b. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission has clear authority to review the proposed revocation action of the Air Pollution Control Division and to reverse the Division action in whole or in part. C .R. S . 1973, 25-7-112 (4) (f) The plaintiff has exercised its right to Commission review of the proposed revocation action, and all of plaintiff' s administrative remedies before the Commission , which are prescribed by statute, have yet to be exercised and exhausted. Final agency action within the meaning of C .R. S . 1973 . 24-4-106 (2) has not yet occurred with regard to the revocation action proposed for plaintiff' s (air pollution) Emission Permit , and no "final order or determination of the . . . division or the commission, " within the meaning of C .R. S . 1973 , 25- 7- 117 (1) , has been made or issued in this matter. This court has no jurisdiction to review the subject contro- versy pursuant to either the State Administrative Procedure Act (C . R. S . 1973, 24-4-106) or the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act (C. R. S . 1973, 25-7-117) until plaintiff has exhausted its administrative remedies . WHEREFORE, the defendant Air Pollution Control Division prays the Court enter its order for dismissal of the complaint . FOR THE ATTORNE GENERAL - HUBERT A. FARBES , 4R. , -6353 Assistant Attorney Gener4.1 Natural Resources Section Attorneys for Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health 1525 Sherman Street , 3rd Floor Denver , Colorado 80203 Telephone: 839-3611 -2- • ' o Mq� 978 co Ng Hat. es) e Co nQ� v non BEFORE THE �� °$�� I fE��62 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ] OF ROLANDA FEEDS , INC. , FOR ] OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDATION ] OF PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL USE PERMIT. COMES NOW the Applicant, ROLANDA FEEDS , INC. , by it_, attorney, Anthony V. Zarlengo, P. C. , in response to notice of the Weld County Planning Commission 's recommendation for denial of Special Use Permit entered on February 7, 1978, and hereby enters its objection to said recommendation, and submits the following reasons why the proposed Order should not issue: 1. That prejudicial error was committed by recep- tion of purported evidence outside of the hearing held by the Planning Commission without the presence of counsel or the Ap- plicants which was materially detrimental to the Applicants, to wit: a. ) Weld County Health Department report of alleged violation by Applicants to have occurred January 30 , 1978; b. ) Action of the Air Pollution Control Divi- sion of The Colorado Department of Health of February 7, 1978, ' which revoked Applicant ' s emission permit. 2 . That the action of The Colorado Division of Air Pollution Control revoking Applicant' s emission permit was un- lawful, and Applicant has appealed said revocation to the Dis- trict Court of Weld County in Civil Action No. 29731. Said ac- tion is now pending judicial determination. _.-. } 3. That because prejudicial evidence was submitted to the Planning Commission after the hearing was closed on January 17, 1978 , its subsequent deliberations , discussions and considerations thereof without due notice were contrary to law and its meetings and the recommendation reached thereby was void. 4. That Applicant has been operating and continues to so operate its facility in a manner which fully complies with the provisions and conditions of the emission permit issued by the Air Pollution Control Division of The Colorado Department of Health, and in conformity with the master plan adopted by the Commission . WHEREFORE , Applicant requests this Commission to reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to approve Applicant' s application for Special Use Permit. C . THONY,V. ZARLENGO, P. C. 7? (/_e " 'It�.-c 1_st t oh No. 376.E Atto, p App1i nt 220 t-Mdng6Wer Buil my 1554 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: 629-0574 Address of Applicant: 6509 Weld County Road 51 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 - 2 - ORDER OF BUSINESS Hearing on Rolanda Feeds - Special Use Permit April 25, 1578 The Order of Business for tonight ' s hearing will be as follows : 1 . As is the usual procedure of this Board, it will hear the applicant ' s presentation on its request for a special use permit for a dried poultry waste processing plant. 2 . Next, the Board will hear the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission as read by the Department of Planning Services staff. The Board will take up any objections to these recom- mendations at that time. 3 . The Board will then hear any public comment relating to the compliance of the Rolanda Feeds operation with the Special Use Permit Standards contained in the Weld County Zoning resolution. The Board reserves the right to ask questions of any speaker at any time throughout the proceedings and to call witnesses to provide information relevant to the hearing. Our object is to provide a hearing fundamentally fair to all . Thank you. I I :A ;ate. 197.— 1t.. •T1—yl 11, ,,l './i IN ( O,1! Al fl()% )I,,If., ' 1•'•'• i I. . • I :u n.., I. , r t.'7 I I' -- Court F'i.inl; Stamp ---- BEFORE THE BOARD t:I' COUNTY COMMISSIO:•.1:: :i I I' i IN A\I) r(11{ Ti!E 1' . . . ('OI'N'1'1" ()1•' WELD I I AND STATE (q.' Cult)1{A I)o . I ; II DocketNo. . 78-22. I i' III SU13POI';NA 1 , THE PEt)1'1.E Ol"THE STATE of COl,(►1{.11)t) I; , To. FQ;V\Ld). j3AQ_;1GhRTNER.._._332.9.1 .IIigtlway 52. , Keenesbur(,j , Colorado; , ,]b:4i,.' I-),;RF'URST.L 55 North Pine, Kcenesbur9, Colorado; II .... ....... ..... ... . .. . .. . .. I, .., ,. Iit Y!I P.F.' TON_ ... East. Bandy Avenue, Keenesbur9, Colorado; I . -- _c;;UCK CAPLSON . Route 1 , Box 30, Eaton, Colorado., .. (MEETING • . 1'()C A\1) l:.1CII t)1•' YOU nri• berth nrclere,l to :city II I III, i Vise te:,I!MOnv in tl.r. Ci1a:nlhcrs I of the Board of County Commissioners , 915-10th Street , Greeley, Colorado, County of . Weld... . .... ...... the 2 5th cl,cy of April... II 19 78._ , ct .7;.QQ...o'eloek ..Pt.DI , as witness for .-ROLANDA FEEDS , INC. , applicant, I Lc : Spec.Lal Use Permit I I II I I And this you hl.,cll in now oonow iso omit, under penalty „f the law. 'I . Deed ADX'.i.1..-2.1 ... ...... ..... ... 197.f....._ I, � I � I ;Seal of Court) I' Clerk of said Court I I By i Deputy Clerk I 1 i, 1 , I:O`'Y •V. ZARLENGO, P. C. { y ,(t.'., ,,?7 , -,-/ZL.,-7 -, ..`.)../f_ 1(.._..6.-1 7-7... rnev,':..10 0r RolaIick' Feeds , Inc. 1',''1i•,traL ) c '-. No. 3765 I 220 M1r1.cwo.r Building 1554 Califc:cnia Street i' Dc nv(.r, Colorado 80202 .Tc1u.p1.onc. 620-0574 .. ...... .. . . -_ . I Address of Attorney _- i Tl.ia riLibr'o,•n.s i , Ii,r,u,•,l l,ur'.u.snt to 1{ule 1) of till• t' , .I i, l{.,1. :, of Civil 1'rol•rcluro ---------_- = - -_- --- - - ---- ------- - I I �= - P C.) Z_ A- ,k) Nb A , J i 0 I CA4 p'-i, c 0 e eoi „,c; c:; i 0.-vL.d i'-e c--'‹_-:( et0 iIDA ' -A 1 /L *FE LC.Lc (CZ C.;;), ' 'F_.__.___ X a vim - Pc- _-. kt' I )2/ Cie_ , 5.:+t->)-y P- - b .'1 Z 1- i c- 7---X LA / /U — ;k --(,.(?c c( PC\ [-/ _ p i vtA,t1 to___2-71L_. / _ ,..__otai* c,/,::, '7,15--- `I T-9) C i/ 1/ •i - ' c-h)7-s>' P c- 7 - — iF --?- /I ic-'5-1-z›,- kc'e'fe,-,',t1-- y C.)A a f 0.,a cc_ )-----.1----e ci,..s. i IA e , ' i S+r,h b P_ W F• -IA. Yk_cr,e.-61.-e Ly!'_ Cc" kr-, 1,-,;_,,,,cck 1./ y .--:--c->71 rA_4-- S ez. ,- Le Pr// / - -� 1( P n,e13,,,, i a j ----K pe-A _ -7 -74 Fs> e:,, t - e__ )i4r,:r/---- ,/ acs r,_1, ----- ft to l 4 -e 0.1 _ A� j y k . Xi /<- ; 1 -:-'5-;17t- -- S e- Cs ` L AA e 0 t")4 s -)4:7 -->. ----1`"-i-a uv-, C\--k.-( i - '^ C rrL' ��' l�i \ Ir -- 4-, NisE --ic 'c.; ltv-e, O---•; k (\_. (---, — .> -, ) L i I 7-_c c" OC`:c ‘. .7\--- t ) kcL`c 1 cif C -c C z 5 . 1,A-C- v\_ 1 , . (r.L,-k- '1/4:\ c5-.),'N.,_ ___ ,-k : 7.-vi\m-f cx , 7,- ,-,_, , „41) e -c--- \),-\:.,\_-c.. e- ---, .€ 0 t\- ) k'_ __ _ )--c, y_: -----„ v j I r -' )'ii-{ o 4 t, rIr I(ce VtA r -_ PQ t c?yL �t-± z<p /vs. ,c c`7 ,'.L< 4, c /7 /L ,$y 2 ��3ff v) rD Q �J 1 N -7 [L VI CO J ' S'� E 1 1i ^J 3 J k p rt'S J lfl rt e i ,^ Y CD v g II WiI{ � It 1 F III fi r_, 4 +` C�' r if a V C C. x �, 6 3� 1 .3„-,*, ru D„ , :......, _,, ,, . , ,_ ....._ _, r,.: _ , ....., . , - .r"-1 `,, '' ' L.-..' f.)._, D__„. I n, ci._ . itC, o E ' I CS o 0 «, ,11 1,, � � - 1_1a t �(-- ' ' , r(��1 Ii�} r rJ% i d a , F a- i,e,- I5 I I ryet, F-1--- i+ . ! vJ s 1._. , , ,, ,, i 4- ,,,--Ir3 . ; *, 1 _ ,, ___, , _. ,,, __ y ii _-- - etL a �� *.s.,--1....,....J Iv) I ..,...... . . , , t 1 aP-� 1 i `-' .. ' r, I r� T ID fb II +1I ` pp� R �1 - N C+ _, ! i ��V r 1 N 11 -3 O,, , , ._ 1 ! r' ,, c , ( . Vi _ O n cl ,-p 1 4 ' i 1 �. *ti rD C� LAr......._....... �j , , 5 i I I ic, , II I; --� ,C)- ._., (... ,-3 ----,.. 143 k,,..."-,.....„...,.., 1 i n ; { i 5 a It.........±.....1........±. iIn :---:— rD _ rA i o CD ............L i.:4.4- 1 ,-441 i 0 4.-- ...4.4"".. C-. '''. c"C",., if ! Ps 1 , cm r, LtH t` ZONING VIOLATION COMPLAINT REPORT DATE: /J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES - __-_-_- ___-____ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION: LOCATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION FROM NEAREST TOWN: owner' sTel . No. : name: o-�� Property Property owner' s mailing address:__ Tenant' s name and mailing address : COMPLAINT FILED BY:___44 DATE: / - - 7 7 SoD. COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY: __________________ NATURE OF COMPLAINT: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT: ACTION OF ZONING DEPARTMENT A. Revieaof Complaint filed, indicates❑ no violation of provisions of Weld County Zoning Resolution be in violation: ® the following sections of the Zoning Resolution may indicates Zoning Resolution B. Inspection of tioneofy� of the Weld County Resolution ❑vi violation of provisions sections of the Zoning p violations noted of the following _ Date(s) of Inspection___----____—_____. nspection — O Violation File Started ACTION ON COMPLAINT: ONO Action taken/no violation Date Date __.`.-- to this NOTE: ATTACH TO THIS COMPLAINT REPORT all inspector' s report sheets pertaining No alleged violation. INSPECTOR'S REPORT NAME: NO: Legal Description of Property: Date: _ Time: Zoning Inspector Note: Attach this sheet to the complaint report pertaining to this zoning violation. �li _ -..� vrY,MY'►ti•V1'YL'V•�'✓✓.rYr.rti.-_.�..•�.:�tivr�'�rI II'Y/1'1't'�`�'�"��^�'Mwr�1•�+r'vrVT•1'Nr�•r1•w.r.I.f�rornl.r�.r•11.r.rtir�.��. .�....��._��.....�-___ -� 1 cr(CI E"c'e mcrN-- .4 c--q ; es — --1 .I.-1-Aka V NN 1 c:2: IS PM CANT is�T -AZI-NC '-r n)in NI V3 3 : 1'I 'PM Ot1.04"f‘5 ' Veil A'"`51/4,s,,ac\. SE - k.... .1/4O8. c e-\ec-\-o Aor` c-�-i Q& 49 Q- c - "3-Pt-1 l , \l: 30 Am r�VI „S / wtrdl £SE .� '�,� c.4ics.,'� NC) c�dr. 41/1 f r tA7 V b 1 c 1 ' as 'PM err,,, " i ?I I Ti-c- srci-icm tirlGr�` \k ;Lc-Ar^ • \,e.\ 1k. ., �- .-��S r ;� -,,,,4- p� Ile_ �e l 1 V4J . tY1ar •\. kg)- 1 I :U`Z A Vt_,-) ‘, dpZ i-:'ft, — cDc\ac`s e\eAec bk. It, e l cj �n Scv. e 1r`aY'ck 2/-( 2•.C--� POI \�A�-Ck u)i' 1(11 r. �-�c�e. cyNo� Trr.. 1° r,i l�ct }c.th;r q . ATe-; \ i S'KC d 'rl _ mss;"dl — uJ_ — N.:_-, ,zaccsr. 1 //�� .E. ,_ as.arr 1 art rdy ,tin e {-`13�r.� �l'� �:o-o p.vn Cr� ra�-.v�• _ t,,,:, (�I N 1 ( J i 1 o tJ s 1 - s..4%-...-15, o A.or's. Ard\ as t2:gr e. N - 7,),..„,4_,-3 . F C\L IT`t kS 2 .A ii-` Po\\utt-;tsyN E-ry,ssics,. 1 c-rn;, I� 1l I I • Varek 25 4Q"I r1 C .. 1 i)•32 8 iI, -fir ‘0 ` c ti z t r.,_ c_01-. '(Y ( itt1q -e." e,sS �r;•tr, W(i Q �tJJ c\Cn> �i � / Aa_ rect,i,ed r-vem sues des'C-;ro wi ih f St- citeY.1 '' cfiS r a Pit?ccl- lo► 19?4, 4v C — \l t \(o ci i I • r (3e-v,r-d al r e_c4- �':reA co-6,4- 6,r: er (A.,441-.. Clc rt\e.. I 1 '1 . ,nab ci\:>rRAtek` r c - beer. m..,c\Q._ r` 1 s e\Tier. lae_c:_c"..m.4-k- 1 iggi A,a s A- ,\\erg s wz 'eM c\'`I s.&.its ti 0.. c �� y r~a � .•o,�-3c CO.-1 ao c]per y o��rD c`''y c .T .:' rD • rD w .a-" O d a co ni O N '� ta CL L m r(oi' On y v' O .3• d z ti 0-.C S (a'u'� 7 �r.a,-.. 4 N O cGD•^'� ,..j o(GD a.a`C y o.n - G'�', y M W v, o ^ asn . . a n' a.rD f0 — CD • a w a w o /�� a C - 0 O w O G n ? LID" in p �• 311111 ",.. r.+04 O c) m-a'S� lD On id -(,D o tY co O E.G000 .1 ro N Oo', •N a'= O O ro 3O O a `�° - ro rD c�.b ar .ot. 0, al .% �c o ° c �'� �� mb cwa m n w N co = �� o � oG .�o= ' � Ul 0•os''',''-1.- N rorD P.,(0 < r'�� 3 �JyV3yrDCD~ � .ro D Jon" S CD 0 • rD c 0 en y_`rc'k . L .D a.N ► ro (D, ro O a a.., a.o = p a-- ro t"' MEE • a o •(o n• V3 a.(o'-so 0'-. VI.' ,wi .' G [n raD �r c y a Ca.. $ ,..,y- ►G s c Z r.�au �cD a y y°n° 0 5 �p (�, ;7767-, e ': n� ni cr ; WI 4.. .,, &.r 0 cra n.N o ,— ayo CL.m 0 Cr 0.r•.'y"''1 0.'a•' vl rri ' tic k-,Y t ` @,',"y t'�^' '�,^ � v Y y y �� < y x�.'~' d°' y ¢' v U a 3;a*.' vCi w a•rro'. o rD a N a•e y %, O a� ,g• ym 0' 7-+ ro o o �•: �•a- 0 0.= Cr 0a. r(o t to o w ro v a rp'p n ^n Z • * � x o n O a.po b .y CD Da CA yb CO C 5 x onirD y a � � o tea' � � rk .F �� K n ry.CL CL p'-.w v' Cl. rD gQ �` ' ..:,,,/ k''7-' ,, as z% A' r^, '•-'f)'i7 a'rn r•.n CD b O x; �k ry -i o y a y roc 3 p •g ��,, a nT 3 o ❑ '.0 CL >'s ., •"r 0 '11' yb �"p y da� a3� p „, Zw`< �o c .- flin s wa• AY: 0. -iii ro r .> ` y, b •.-.0 y S'=J'�'. C),yam. to `r1 U' N_� G ( r• ,N `,, a a M a.N ? ", fD p (7.0'•, 7��a'5. y n` o 161411 n y •0 r. 2' ro to N a•oc' w C• q o y r. r..•-. .- y (`n•- n' O a. b ,A O N (ID • • *x. co T a. y ro Op a. N ? P a " �.a,a,a fD to o ▪ a• a._ O Gana.0• s y a 0 a y ^Y 5 ,'..`,;,‘,..,,V t i" "E fD fD 7 f] fD 0 a. C rD y G a Cr c ,, r '"3 .� s coO y a ,„(D a'=O a' n O�G .7'5 rD fMD ' el a.y "^ ro CD`0 a• O a N r ;,,,, ,, ..ti 0 r N (ND rD a o N a A' D' < c .FD" t `r' '�'' ta,j y d D.+ rD rn a .-0. CD cn i.,. -�Wt ' a. rte" . E; O ro fi n. r. y ti rn a,n O a' ••''. " ,• �:rya'*„g�` f• :,. �.a' 5 rD`e nl C O'0 O = r c c0 3 co O r.. co ro ,, a in a ,.y '&, M� X00 cm coo t� `o ;.'',1.,.t " C Cr r'0'~' fD r. Da G `'‹ b .n G a aSrlD,z t O `G O y o a ., w o 'A.* -'` N r--- • aye �J, CD a ..3(D N CD , fy.Cr ,0 a•. ", y ro ", G. #`x 5-•,-,. a-0 .'-y n ,yy _O ^t _KJ .y-.• !o a' y n 1 y y co rD n u, a r p- p 0 0 0 0 a s co a. `etyma -,'ea .»,‘e a.a O Z G G m x m �� O ,3. C;72.m 6 5 "O p m ma) m .a U n' ,_,[rJ . R n?c d y �Qi �'(7(CD a�n'a N O.. a•n.xo'rJm �a '3u' 0rA ma o y �-f° p.o -a .o CrC o �'. n' y y.,•.e`e o. 2..�,r. a.c o a p, IMP ro O "� '9 a it, (- O n 5-a C '<n0 Gr) I�9 (D (n 5 �,' to • , _.p a O O to• Q 4 y y ;, :...-;• :‘,,,,g ,yy co a.A, A, .m+, y ,� N a .+ 5 n' a'O CL r' O• p.rn O O A.MD'5 a,0 O m cn `<O.C Q.Zrma. pr' 0 =. 7. 0 y a fn D . O 0 0(mo .� 0 0 m 9 o (n 1:11:1 Milin O CD m !is-m G y E.jrnDco•ailT1 x m " � ' c.^ wa � o o CD P ® • ti . -, o Boa O o m f, m n' .y m, p r..., oi .t•D'.r.,ro • 2116:1 , r cn y� b ro MN - Cx7 52" o C'''':4:' < o `.� m O co a. w o f rn w m 5 • A Z °' j w r.N a o Zini p • 5.�. = 0 Gft. o L. o'CD `•a •„ 0 p a. y as m oa a A co O O a m a o O OWa0 G CT ? 0 C C r. y O• oGasp co 0 o- a o-4-••• ors • 'clP:l 5. irl am--hL (1)O a.y O G (o T a.o.O N ra Ny 7.y0 .-.1:1. a 0 p °.-. y QC Oq y w .-'y„ . i n', a.f~D °, OR '1.-- G'C y raD a. •-1 � a c m n 5 a� •< a O, o• 0 a,a n0 ",.-As y ,.,,�;R'! cr m as -I o p•y O�o'rj " '� may~-, et, 'v ... �O° a.0"0 °V°vr .Oo• N 4 ititi<n O QaC _ OU .e riall =.*m y C a (n ra. y n ti - y= ;7). Z I �} 1 rD co CM �� OaamyFCo � a a N .y.•co 5 cr. ,..,. .,„ ,,,'•. e 0 -, c 5 (:....„,F3 p..., cn j\1 O .P y '.. < y ry. O O a C p a w n ci on v rho p O '"� � :;..,SFr m O T• A.C. c N C c i ! ` .-.4 (I) z M 0 .y--. m a O a. m a a w ...f �• .,m CD DJ ' T v' n' n 2� an Nral2i ry � � a m o o c r9 n- Mil xo = o .d w v vm� j n �G CD �b n' G' con •J Otali • a4 rCDD �i, �. , C a < rc cwi, o y —' 1 0 y .c a •as o 0g • 0. Q aaa >' G' m a a w ( a' ( F ! 6 y GREELEY TRIBUNE FlKRUARY 8, 1978 1 ® \ 4 rAiTYUrS peralEGA C): ByJOIlNSEELMEYER company to exceed standards for odor pollution Tribune Staff Writer The county planning staff recommended denial of the Weld County's Planning Commission Tuesday denied permit. a permit which would allow operation of a plant which Senior Planner Ken McWilliams said the plant—and converts chicken manure into cattle feed, particularly its odors — would "adversely affect the At the same time, the Colorado Health Department total environment" said it's revoking an air pollution permit granted last Even though Rolanda installed about$100,000 worth of November to the facility operated by Rolanda Feeds: • equipment to fight the odors last summer, McWilliams Inc four miles northeast of Hudson. said public comments indicate the fight against odors The planners' vote, which still faces action by the wasn't successful. county commissioners, didn't take the health depart- Along with residents of nearby farm homes, the ment action into account Keenesburg Town Board voiced opposition to the plant. Two weeks ago, the planning commission closed The board said odor and f:y problems from the plant debate on the Rolanda operation after it heard would cause difficulties in the area. numerous comments from surrounding residents who Planning Commission member J. Ben Nix of Eaton complained of odors from the facility. said the staff's recommendations "ably and amply About nine days after the debate was closed, Dr. recognize the problems involved" in the Rolanda con- Franklin Yoder, director of the Weld Health Depart- troversy. ment,said tests showed the Rolanda plant violated state The only planning commission vote in opposition to the odor standards and requested state action. denial came from Fort Lupton-area farmer Frank The state permit issued Nov. 30 didn't allow the Sukla. 'volt [I n c pp i�,t,b 1,ee( J�fx t�l •Y k • : • p n 99 7 7<° , U ( s b k press,& econ;bom= _ do n& „ And ers, then , ' ` owned • ' It its mula, Fore: ;: . - + - our Irish. ('do t'6 „ , ",1:. + ute tot '11F'._. ,�, —' s in his papor t 1 , a , c;reeley t'< .,r): ,1'' a • - about the ityt.'iy, „ years—th_- k: i - S ged anti char fi..`a . the air out of tuwn !yr.!. - cuss wit.; . ' chicken t . U p1a111/G�T13. . " { Y� - S , now . . 9j b'i, ;aa ' „41, < The. sparselT, ;-,0i+t.ttat t . „- wheh t + • , farm :�;� •., T h e ., „ • • KEENE VALLEY SUN THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1977•9� illkt 1 'K3 P n t.�y�i,/�jj��;b',3��{�J 't- +� @Ai .'�{ f' � 1�6oiI ��i `. . 1 r At,: �,,r,! �' `t.:12�Y' b /J P .1,.r. The stack test(for particulate emissions) health department,the test h r n ;tponed. of controversy due to the odor from the at Rolanda Feeds, the final test before the Rolanda Feeds officials were as,:ed to in- plant.It is seeking a permit to operate from Colorado Air Pollution Control division's de- stall the necessary devices to correct the the State Air Pollution Control Commis- cision on whether or not to grant Rolanda a swirling gases, after which the stack test sion, and a land use permit from the county permit to continue operations, has been will be made. commissioners. postponed. Stow also said he and John Clouse of the Originally scheduled for Oct. 6, the test State Air Pollution office in Denver visited The commissioners can't act on the re- was to be made by an outside firm.Because Rolanda Tuesday, and found the company quest until they receive a recommendation conditions in the stack were not conducive was not in violation of odor standards. from the county planning commission which for testing due to swirling stack gases, ac- Rolanda Feeds, which recycles poultry is waiting for the State Air Pollution Com- cording to Ron Stow of the Weld county waste into cattle feed,has been the subject mission to make its decision. KEENE VALLEY SUN EDITORIAL JULY 7, 1977 Will Rolanda Plant Be Accepted? SOUTHEAST WELD COUNTY— at least the part around Hud- son and Keenesburg—has gotten kind of uptight about the Rolanda Feed Mill and its processing of chicken manure into cattle feed. Why? Because of the odor. And the flies. I VISITED THE PLANT LAST WEEKEND and I admit I was im- pressed with the ingenuity on the part of the owners—and the definite economic advantage it offers to SE Weld. Additional income, and addi- tional employment. These are advantages not to be sneezed at, by anyone. The owners expect the scrubber to eliminate all odors, and the en- closure of the whole plant this fall—erecting a building over the whole operation—to eliminate the fly problem. . And if these proposed refinements work as expected by the own- ers, then the opposition should end. HOWEVER, I KEEP REMEMBERING the immense stockyards owned by Ken Monfort just north of Greeley. It was a remarkable spectacle. Thousands of cattle being fed a for- mula. Foreign travelers visited the scene and marveled. We once took our Irish editor friend Liam Bergin to see it, and he wrote a fitting trib- ute to the American system of fattening cattle for the slaughterhouse in his paper in Ireland. But . . . the Monfort plant kept growing. Tourists and visitors to Greeley complained, and some of the townspeople began to complain about the smell. And although the power that reigned in Greeley those years—the bankers, and retired farmers, and landowners—all shrug- ged and chuckled and said that "that was just the smell of money" in the air . . _ Still, Monfort eventually had to move his enormous operation 'way out of town—many miles away from the city of Greeley. ONE ITEM THE OWNERS OF ROLANDA were reluctant to dis- cuss with me was the volume of business they do. How many tons of chicken waste do they handle in a week? And who buys it? Well, my guess would be if the business is a healthy one, they'll be planning to expand it to meet a growing market. And even if the scrubber and the new building control everything now . . . will it, a year from now? So my suggestion would be: There's a lot of land in SE Weld county which is very, very sparsely populated. Perhaps they should find such a spot to relocate the plant—now, when it'll cost less than later. We've all seen what happened to Monfort's, a typical but extended farm operation. The same thing could happen here. r Wed.,Jan.18,1978 GREELEY (Colo.)TRIBUNE 3 At what point does chicken manure become too smelly? Y By JOil'SEELMEYER met state odor standards in a "est conducted Tribune Staff Writer Saturday. How smelly is smelly9 But, he admitted, "I wouidn t want to live This is the question which wasn't quite there" resolved by the Weld County Planning Corn- Russell Hays, an area resident questioned mission Tuesday as it heard arguments over a the agricultural zoning in IA hich Rolanda Hudson-area facility which dehydrates operates and claimed the company is instead a chicken manure for use as cattle teed commercial operation The plant, operated by Rolanda Feeds Inc Planning Director Gary Fortrer said, tour miles northeast of Hudson, meets state however, staff members feel the company standards for odor pollution. produces agricultural items for farm use. Yet, neighboring landowners and a county Other residents also questioned w by the firm health department technician said they still was allowed to operate dui mg the months that think the odors from the plant are difficult to it installed anti-pollution equipment live with. Fortner said county otfici,is torsidered "This plant still stinks," said George court action, but were advised that a judge Shaklee who lives near the plant "The odor is wouldn't hear the question while Roiauda was as bad as it ever was" working to solve its odor problems Another neigh'or,Allen Alter,compared the Some residents claimed, too, that the plant odor to smell of bodies on a battlefield has increased populations of house flies in "The stench has been unbearable when the their neighborhood and swarms of flies are wind brings it in my direction,"said Alter and sometimes found more than a mile away other neighbors agi ccd. - " Rolanda President Les Stolte denied that Last summer, the planning commission delayed action on a special Use permit to allow problems have arisen ti ill flies and said the operation of the plant until Rolanda got an air firm takes steps to eliminate insect problems pollution permit from state authorities Atter hearing more than two hours of The permit, which carries lengthy argument, Planning Commission member J requirements for operation of the plant, was Ben Nix of Eaton said.le thinks the Rolanda granted in November atter Rolanda installed plant might,x moved to a less-popu ated area about $100,001) v.orth of anti-pollution equip- And Nix called for a quick decis on on the ment proposed permit for the plant Attorney Anthony Zarlengo, who Two other commission nit trrius, `crank represenled Rol,.nda, claimed the anti- Sucsla of iural Plat t"vi-le a ; Je,r Kietc'r of pollution equ.p:reat "eliminated odors" from Greeley, said they want to 1 isit -tie facility the plant His reir at k dreg, laughter from the before they make a decaum ntighbors While the commisvoi tabl,'d action on the Ron Stow, an a,r pollution specialist for the plant, it promised a decision at ,ts Feb 7 county health typal iment, said the plant meeting. KEENE VALLEY SUN December 8 , 1977 Rolanda Wins Okay From Health Department DENVER—The Colorado Department of Air Pollution Control Division. Health has issued an emission permit to Included in the permit are specific re- Rolanda Feeds, Inc., Keenesburg, to oper- quirements for operation of the facility's air ate its dried poultry waste processing pollution control system to decrease pollu- facility. tion. Under the permit, Rolanda must adhere "If Rolanda complies at all times with the at all times to state air pollution control requirements of its emission permit,we are regulations governing visible emissions and confident that the operation will meet air odors,said John Clouse of the department's quality standards," said Clouse, who added that failure to meet any permit provision would result in revocation of the permit. w cd Q, = o +4 C) F. : 3 Cam+ C�w ,• C) ,_ O X. o Woa' mn"�' a.oc� b � � ti � � � � .o 0 r �. G r3a, Z O g a) ti Vy y, 0 O. u ct "rr.K �• E 01. .� � z troy ❑ � >atw '" -- us > :r• [ A` v ° U 53. W O =1 +4 rte' 'v) p a C C) O• f. O CD U rO, a O nom- 0 �� a 7' O ® Wor� ca Ws: o ;� C7s •o3 ,,, .a _ ;1)- > o � o co Q+ cd , • o Q, 0^o L' s, ct4. v O a cr a.r-i .O • y W a z•s. at o to W o 3 rj a � a» g 4 o o o raocoo) N � ) a) P- > ° 3x03 a� 3 x -a = sm. ° w o ab.0 4 O clo CCI "a a) CD Cd o ,� oorn•.. 0 o �c.ti � s� � u4a^ti Z 74 � o Cli Zsaa A4,1 � s� W ►-�,.a °^ate Aa.�' a ° ys� >> Z Qii.) "� X0 •3 Uop� �� y -40 W � �' ° oa' �� u0i ... icil: ciiiiiZoe O o � s� s. +4o '-.1O .... O '4-' Z � � 4u 'o o^o ,_\' Illia 4-11 .5 4 v O a 2. v Cr �' .- , �U • G) :'a a) O U O Wzao W � s~ 0 Ci) ON Wooa) c > z W � :-. C a�ti.) : w, o 0 4.-4 -4-3 O ...1 <-.4 O14+J ...= E I 3, 1= , . „ , i • p. � I. R' 1, FJ t ' • l� C) ( rr O C` r, X,CM et-N''', 0 r_ cz, • ',--. r- c-_ t.• 1-3 - -,_ ,, --.... ,:t •• -, - -- C.) I''-) PM. 6..._�.^ i A •+: (; C .i • ) - —.. 'F-- r '• (=V , to flIlifil •r� ' D F 1 k ,J O C *0 .� 0 .• Cr z G c? � ' .„ CS y U '`• �^ - ,, c-, •�� +0 �.. H • H j� ti q TS Q c, LL : • C '- • Rr ti t -.1 v • 4, t1 ,. - L C; .-: . , , c., 4•-„, - - - ---- -- - -- - - - ------- 2.5mt: L .. . . .1--iii..-..E . .:,,,,,,,„ ..::::.. ,..„.:‘,„: ,:::, Via:':; y Serving Keenesburg Hudson , „../ .. . :.....:,::,.:„... -- ::,...,:..:.::,.. _„:::::„.:::‘,„:„.,_ ..„.. sb g I0c Ccl Lochbuie, Roggen, Prospect Valley __.__.--, 732-4534 ..._.: VOL L ME 53 NUMBER 23 THURSDAY,JULY 7,1977 KEENESBURG, COLORADO 80643 I 11 (..) rj( 0LANDA1NOW 4 i MIathio These Are Our Concerns B t f WE ARE CONCERNED that an area WE ARE CONCERNED that tremen- nd noY containing 2000 or more people is, at dous amounts of precious fossil fuel are times befouled with an incomparable consumed to change an excellent fertili- • stench. zer into a feed of questionable appeal, _ialath10' that is in indirect competition with our WE ARE CONCERNED about the economically oppressed grain produc- future, after hearing the statement of ers. ® Mr. Glen Paul, of the Weld County attaches $ Health Department, on June 21, 1977 at WE ARE CONCERNED that if this en- the Weld County Planning Commission vironmentally unsound operation is al- l mutes. meeting in Greeley, Colorado, that the lowed to continue, the apparent ease ' odors from the Rolanda Feed plant with which rezoning, after the fact, would continue even if scrubbers were may be accomplished, may well bring s installed. opportunists motivated by greed who will act with complete and utter disre- WE ARE CONCERNED that the dust gard for the feelings and sensitivities of i from this plant may cause respiratory the communities' residents as well as f problems for many people now and that with contempt for the land use regula- a# on dithe use of this product in cattle feed tions of the County. may in the years to come be found to I cators now av have been detrimental to the health of HELP US, HELP YOURSELVES, Pet- I many people. itions will be circulated calling for the disapproval of the special land use per- ROGGEN WE ARE CONCERNED that if this op- mit. If you are not contacted at home eration is granted legality, property petitions will be available at the Hud- ,:,,_ values in Hudson, Keenesburg, and the son Town Hall and Keenesburg Town i surrounding areas may be so adversely Hall. affected as to cause many people to face Fred a economic hardship, Farming Paid for by Concerned Citizens for a good environment in S.E. Weld County. T'`' �J [ z? A E;°"/N, .. : ,. 3 cuLORRAlw 80643 Stop Ro Now ! A note of thanks to those of you who have overwhel- mingly supported this citizens' action, showing your dis- pleasure and concern by signing a petition against the granting of a special land use permit for Rolanda's con- tinued operation. It is unfortunate but in the matter of Rolanda there is no middle ground. Those who profess a wish to not get involved do thru their neutrality give tacit approval to the continuing contamination of our homes and environment. If you are concerned and wish to participate along with countless others please call any of the below listed numbers and be assured of the opportunity to express your displeasure by adding your name to the petition. Help Us — Help Yourselves Phone 536-4349 536-4687 732-4278 732-4286 [Paid for by Concerned Citizens fora good environment in SE Weld County] KEENE VALLEY SUN THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1978 — ELLE to tI Editoz . Writers Defend Rolanda March 3,1978 to find out what their product is Keene Valley Sun used for? Some of you possibly Mr. Blair Macy: are using it in your cattle feed. We have written the attached Possibly you are eating beef that letter to some of the south east has been fed the mixture origin- Weld County residents. We do ating at Rolanda Feeds. (Ugh! not know if you will or will not How can you blue bloods stand to publish it. We fully realize your eat it?) position and feel you are trying We have sat and watched some to be fair by trying to publish the of you go into the local bars and facts. We appreciate that. restaurants and put drinks in These residents with their pe- your mouth that taste worse titions have been around to our than the Rolanda product smells. house and we feel that they have These people are doing every- maliciously and without fairness thing they can and as fast as attacked Rolanda Feeds., possible to eliminate their prob- We feel it is about time some- lems'. Let's give them a fair one spoke in defense of these chance! very fine people. All you big crusaders and do- We realize this does not apply gooders who have nothing else to to all our good residents in our do—why don't you go out to fair county. We are not crusa- Rolanda and meet these people ders, but feel that there are two and try to work with them?They sides to every story. It is time are very fine people who pay Rolanda had theirs published. their bills, and we believe that Sincerely, we desperately need this kind of Mr.&Mrs.Jerry L.Mutchie people in our community. If you aren't interested in building up our community, why don't you To A few Residents of move someplace else or to the Southeast Weld County: city where you will be happy? We have lived in Hudson for We are interested and we are three years and watched it try to here to stay. We hope Rolanda rise and fall and try to rise again. Feeds does the same. They have But we are sick and tired of our full support. picking up our good Keene Val- Respectfully, ley Sun and reading all the Mr.and Mrs.Jerry L.Mutchie protests about Rolanda Feeds. We have to say we think it is unfair.Who do you think you are, circulating such petitions?What- ever happened to free enter- prise?Each one of us no doubt is doing something our neighbor doesn't like. But how busy we all would be if each one of us circu- lated a petition. Most of you were either born, raised or now choose to live on a farm or in the country as we have. If so, you have endured odors such as this before but perhaps you don't remember. (We remember.) Rolanda is providing employ- ment for 21 people. We ourselves operate a trucking company and transport several loads a week from Rolanda Feeds. They reven- ue is helping the shipper, truck- er, consignee, consumer and numerous others in our circle of survival. Have you ever taken the time __ County planners postpone action on use permit for, dehydration plant By JOHN SEELMEYER microphone to complain of In an effort to cut down air Tribune Staff Writer odors from the plant. Those pollution from the facility, Faced with numerous odors,they said,can sometimes Rolanda plans to install complaints about odor and air be smelled more than five miles "scrubbers" which would pollution from a plant near away. remove most of the suspended Hudson which processes One of the area residents, solids from the plant's stacks, chicken manure into cattle Phil Bowles of Keenesburg, he said. feed, Weld County Planning said odors from the plant are State permission is required Commission Tuesday post- sometimes so bad during before those scrubbers are poned action on a special use nighttime hours that they installed. permit for the operation. awaken him. The planners said they won't Other residents said the odors Stolte said the plant offers an consider a permit for the force them to close windows, to outlet for chicken manure operation until Rolanda Feeds stay indoors or to avoid hanging which was formerly hard to Inc. can show the plant doesn't laundry out when a wind is deal with. violate air pollution or odor blowing from the plant site. One area farmer, Richard standards. But, Glen Paul of the county Sheets,noted,for example,that Ron Stow, an air pollution health department told the his two chicken ranches— one specialist with the county group that compliance with near Keenesburg and the other health department, told the state air pollution standards close to Erie — daily produce i planners the dehydration won't necessarily mean an end some 121,2 tons of chicken facility four miles northeast of to the odor problem, manure. Hudson violated air pollution "It's possible if they meet "We think it's a much-needed standards during a test last standards that we're still going facility," Stolte told the plan- week. to have odors," Paul said. ning commission. "An Rolanda officials are And, when Planning Corn- agriculture zone is definitely scheduled to meet with state mission Chairman Ron Heit- the place for this facility." and county air pollution man asked if residents would authorities Friday to discuss still object if state standards He said manure isn't stock possible solutions to the air were met, most of those in the piled at the location and em pollution problem. crowd answered affirmatively. Ployes of the firm clean up the More than 90 residents of the Stanley Stolte, a spokesman operation every night in an at area packed the hearing room for Rolanda Feeds, said the tempt to cut down odors. of the Weld Centennial Center firm, too, is concerned about The decision to table the to voice their opposition to the odors from the two large special use permit request plant at Tuesday's planning dehydrating machines it came on a unanimous 8-0 vote of commission meeting. operates. the planning commission, with For an hour, those residents "We want to eliminate the commission member Chuck followed each other to the odor," he said. Carlson of Eaton absent. — — i- - - - ._ _ t 711* I' 11 To -- I To \ "-e' __-_____ 4 I, Dote_ V _ Tarr 71j I Dote `J% Time %\.--\ e ill WHILE OUT YOU WERE WHILE YOU WERE OUT Mr. — — ! Mr. �`S.�J\ - V.r...%-_‘N. �G ��\�.?►t.t!3 r l 1 1hexe,^N.t 1 ` \�- \\-ire , Phone .� - ��—O �y il Yrsa Coie Number Extena,on _Ana Cots. Extension Number e --..„....ri; •.6;:,,-)-�- �� Pleccase tail !I Telephoned �..,\ Please call ',“3:-c1 tee you L I W.II call again I; Called to see you ' Will call again ' stee you Rush I I Wants to see you Rush , !LR rned etu 'lour a--- Cll _�, I; I Returned Your Call Mt ssic,ge---. Message - I Ii Ij I' i jl TELEPHONE fl®6-3383 ' CZ3 ALBERT G. DEROSE ATTORNEY AT LAW 1554 CALIFORNIA STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Rb Ocatel 4t.ryas b , N I© 801043 671-//oa . .536 46,q.3 S7an 1al To\�C�, -- _ Dare_�` \� _— Tirtee-_ L � �, WHILE YOU WERE OUT Mr. of - `� � _ �� - Phone ' et Number Area Code _ Telephoned Please call NV, Called to see you Will call again I 1 +t� Wants to see you yam Rush Y '{ j1urned Your Gall tr Message i; 44, Q 4'1 g96a 72;/7 To Nib ' -.rte w-` ,r-..=3- r -- A f r- Date Time -•_ ---•s.r-: ;GC:ar� WHILE YOU WERE OUT (S ^Ro Fraz.) �♦ // / ) / / I_Anthony- _�,rlen ge M �L y/V/V L eL� S STREE I A :O // ' 1554 California Stre:1 of___e///t ' s' ."-a---.7 .'//C.. A .7-e II pDenver, CO 80202 Phone y -- - -- - --C Area Code Number E�tensror, F-i "c._ _ 7 Fr-E__ _ _ Telephoned Please call ' _ _• -Ty- _�_— 1C (2 I , Called to see you Will toll again I u I k:'I�' r7=;' .' `'' C Wants to see you Rush I - SF,L C Returned Your Call t,.7 1E. _ _ — -_ - _ — I � 1,_I , Aq.. .,mCTED C� Message M uI I'— — ,// /��/) /� = PAC:,T'.. :.'E MD f /((^/ ((LL M tD r� i�ES dCTiJ2 =IV '/✓� TOTAL PO3TAC:AI:D FRT3CD $ yll co FOGTC^ARA OR DATE ¢I 07 3-14-78 w u: wN. CO k UI CO ° Fuy I bCo --IT - In !d � 1O I- rl rs ..7-2 ly N- �)l' U ,-, _, o LL I 7[�y r_t <) -� - 'moo mooe, o O r-H cd U' '4.Q 'CI �. -a≥ i-w. o-W� e- ,_ di ® U c �/''j O -� a ;>n ��c. a Q r-I ILL AIL. _I ` 12,?.--i! [f) I r'. cI°- oW7 oy r4 el h<_, N tc LL I t_CI I : .:(3' ? O co 0 I Ol�tn o b I c' I _G=zyf n-3 11�021d0 - a ra r_riI.)Q' '�Cfl I o �_ , 9 J UlLGV J ZOci 1111SNO3 I ° P. 9L61%WV'CC mz1J Sri 40 0 C 4 'V - V` '• 'n v\ v\ ,r, a o C r In N 2 cc: resolution denying SUP A N �: Q z a �a "¢ : G O F c a wi- • f �— P.' W 'b F o Z 0 C, of CC b N N FZ 0 v •v of 'n o >.Z.1 '1( 0 z7 a z o .0..z il v ^O p V td 4 ��. ti b 11 co N Q v S':NT'0 • y y v A • ` N Rolanda Feeds, II v b y; y;"g w "' o z + W n cn a, ,b "a x-o P4.-0 0 0 • CO o o v `, o STR'E-A'J NO, -e a m r,14 u W , A W C\I b - 8, ca aS > 1,4 > o 0 H P a is, : y ,, _ l� O 6509 Weld Co. Rd. -�' -� b .� et CO P6, SINILANDZIPC0N 8o yq bAcabv O En • UOw � « ~ d ° CO Keenesburg, Co. - �. ^ �a g A E A vNi U a v "� a ¢ " a X41 0PTIONAt SLID_ :I a;T v ay, o o [mil o o C w z o « \ D a W 00 4 [ F+ C C `�f RI-T!`q, 1 t,r - Ems. � a a Vasa o � `� w e u w o r 1I-t r rT I r,..., ;'_ w< a o o r� ° a " a rd N o z ° ,�y 0 tL o a cn v) a W ,-I w w a u W O a DELP/Fit TO AD0RE�bD 0r\ " w w 2 I' "..2 w. -,9,, U C(I CS E U w 3 V. j W\ K m ® w .c O LOn l'" y ' Q J ~ O a , I l❑❑ ❑ v,. oatn o z H w � a a � xa W x0 a ' U) • W .. w N Pi CC ., y V 6 tD PS Form 3811,Nov.1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL certified copy of resolution denying SUP __SENT TO ------ IRK Anthony V. Zarlengo (,,<u„rE (..y STRrC ''14 ,"v7, 220 Manpower BLDG. , 1554 California St. OD ti P 0, STI. .,9 tL A LIP COOL Denver, Co. 80202 5/1/78 I _ (',I MIA! S!I:' _ :.' RktcIYIS'IQL FCLS `r Rrru'.J N1. 'II- i_ _ ; _.,, (2-I, L..',IVCrc:] . 16 R,,, ,,T I \ ''ii' ' II try to cidre__CC only, 650 / 2 1,'-tc ••_ cm Cc'Ivcrctl 33 -'- ti , 'i. ,"I" R3%+ o 0£,J\,i'I 10 ,,UUIIE'SLEE rl\I`, ® `P i._ ' " f'_ (, !I': ,n( ._:?r:i „m A e -ca is e, u\ 4 53 ° V1 um to O :J u N ,o., Co ,.y -8 a a • �s O O y ]6.t ', •se J y • v z be =≤ Ill F- 9 • O • • tt. 41 W c ..al d a�` J� ^L p v a., H y ra• i.. E _ �, o {y w t, o u U Y 'ncd p , •:1 N N 6, 4 4�, in E a, -'may M v ,� v o in 6 ro :G O e �c 7-5 w b ""IA �'0 0 0 r-I z q o Iii ry 0. �, i° wow = O n 0 t+7 o ,D u `O , co v W v '� FOro ~ O a u a m H E. 8 g v A ro Q-o v m r—}�I H O w 5 t'ti ° re 11 2''N v o o AoA0 a w N C.-P:1 p v a aC ., W o D. ov c a a ,J� a s v. o o 6 v ' w E o nI V< •a $ 0 Fri ° g2 ' Q `> 0 z o , p U µaj O O O (n O O ,' w W A V W .O U, 1- Zu VJ W of ct ^y _CJ g r o Cr t 6 CU j W w J tz1 .C �'''I, l- O F H I- CC Cl r0r� vl 1.y 4'�❑❑ ❑ '3- Q y ccdd a O O Z ^7 • .; W. • f~ CV a W x a n , G, CV m N y�� O PS Form 3811,Nov 1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL 4 tii y • SENDER: Complete items 1,2, ''! i c Add your address ir:the "RETURN TO" space on 5 reverse. 1. The following service is requested (check one). Show to whom and date delivered 250 O Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom and date delivered 854` El RESTRIC I ED DELIVERY. Q® g Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 t , (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other ra fees). wzi 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: T© P3 Rolanda Feeds , Inc . 6509 Weld County Road 51 ENGA m Keenesburg, CO 80643 A n m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: fl".4i REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO. $�® 10./..54 m848259 mI " " (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) a m I have received the article described above. cu � o SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee ❑ Authoriztd agent 4e$1 ›' '� C 4. /1-4-.A 3t�i v r'�J�l/l1 C ,-i co m DATE OF DELIVERY ! POSTMARK o 0 o ; / (i— ,Ali ? Y ,Y' +� b N> .� G 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested),CI - O., P- . r • ‘- r- .)) i—1 rO-1 X .. y • SENDER• Complete.tem; 1,1..nd i • • +, Add your address in the 'F' -i "tN iD" space on d' ra O 3 reverse ,.25 +� to m 1 The following service is requested (check one). �+ Show to whom and date delivered 254' 4) 4) O ,4 z ,-I .O ur1 6.0 O Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 td o o O Q I4 in W RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom and date delivered 85$CO : O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other fees). 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Pe \ C Anthony V. 7arlengo , P .C . z 1554 California Street Z \ XI Denver, CO 80202 A 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: \&.Z \ \ REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO ® O 0 \�+ \ M 848260 ® o D m ® p ® G 63 \ in (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent)UU I4 .1 \` m I have received the article described above. tt O � ,�� m SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee ❑ Authorized agent Z S fn ® 9' ®, \(-(_ (.,‘' , L-( — � U, . .. -. �4 U (1is �� lL� 4 DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK 1ci/_ x]16 ... ' \T A ,,,,, f ® O IlY'� \\\\/v z 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) ,'7 O Cg 0 ' , Q -I O lI 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S G INITIALS C S. r :Y GO,' 19% 0 203 45G IZOI„\NDA I'I I !I S, f\C. N • SENDER (umplete item, t ;nil Add vOut address m the RETURN TO space on rev,I, • RO 1 anda Feeds, Inc. The foliose n u is su is requested 1 check one) Show to es Sons si, date delis c red ICI Show to,shorn (rare &address of delivery 6509 Weld County Road #51 ❑ RES ERR TED DELIVERY NS Shoes to eshorn and date dcltvcrcd Ke('nesburg, Colorado 80643 Li RES[RI('1ID DELIVERY Shoes to eshom late, and address of dcheery SI 05 (Fees shown an to aei'snon to postage charges and other fees) 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO ROLAND<A FLIPS, Inc . C z I)OCKC'I 7 ;- m 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO m 640317 (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) Anthony V. Zarlengo, P. C. m I have received tht article described above >• DATEOV ATURE V (Allot ti«I 220 Manpower Bldg. 1554 California St. DELIVERY - POSTMARK Denver, Colorado 80202 31 m a z• 5 ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) O O rn 2 -i 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'S INITIALS O D i Dale & A. L. Overton Robert, Lloyd & N • SENDER (omplete items 2, uiJ o Add vour address in the ' RETURN TO space on rc verse Stanley Nedsker 5050 South Emporia co 1 The foll ,ss lug sers ice is rc tested (check one) Show to es horn and date delivered )5, Englewood, Colorado 80110 ❑ Show to V.bon, date,&address of delivery i5r • RESIRI(,TFD DELIVERY Shots to eshom and dare ds lie en_d 555 RES'RI( TED DELIVERY Shoes to eshom date, and address of delivers 51 ((5 Fc(s shown ire in oldttio❑ to postage charges and other fees) z 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO \ 1t1)(711 5 . "Jrloil, o, P. C. C z 220 1,)n')o,'ul )ltc] . 1 t't C,11 i form,] • ns','r, Co 1 o. 5020? )(u l:e't '— ' m _ In• 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION Russell REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO 11 D. & Peggy M. Mohr m 641313 0 6212 Road #51 (7) (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) m I hate recessed tht article described above A Ker`nesburg, Co l orodo 80643 mo SIGNATURE sdtlrr vuthori, d ,set nt Z to C4 ----- - - -- ----- --- -— A DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK m a • - 5 ADDRESS (Complete on/y if requested) n m A 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'S INITIALS John T. Gratton Rt. 1 Box 257 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 7 • CFNPFR (omplete Item, 1 to • CFNI)}-R (r,rnp}ete Item, ' ' • -, Add ,,,Ur add,ess In the 'RETURN TO space or: o Add y<+u, address in the RETURN ;O space on rGsC!5! 3 rc'.crse m I. Tilt fr>I losun;sc rs rcs. n rcgt'cstr<l ,check one i I The tolirn w ur 15 tc.Iucstc� (chu) Inc © Lj ',hoss tic osshom and Jttcdclts,red 5t.. �hosr to whom anJ date ch.Iis c rc i 25t z z ri Shoss to vshoot,.late.&address of(lc Inc t r .. . i5c < D know to whom,datc..k address of dclncr} 15' n RFJTRICT}.D DTI[ TRY 1D ❑ RFS'1'RIC:TF.DDLLIt1RY Choss II,vshorn and ,laic ,l,!n_11.d y-'r s,i,oW it)\S horn sot Ito Jt t isctcd Syr RI`n I RIC1 FD DT I R'FRY ER}.5I'R}C FD DI I Iv'FRY shr,ss 'n ssh ,nl•.iitt, i r ' ,<<l Irc,s ut J, lrs Si ()', Sh<,a it)V,horn,.:tt_. ,<n,l,t<IJr,,s of,o n t s SJ. t)5 (Fees shown arc In adstrir,m t„ (,rotaac char-,t s t<tsl othtr (Fc(S ,Ins t arc- in ..._:i'to.t to postt o charge, and whir fits) fees). — 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO X -I J().I•, I . GRA I''I Lv liS sc'l I ). Pec'w '. Lo;ir c Z 6212 ,lo,Id 51 It . 1 Ilo:: ,7 ,, 'r.1 ; �c- _tom%"-.? , Col ,;,,, r \ i m l_�'C'IICSI)L1Ys , l,(s ti --- m _E Cl.. �')Irt Yui (C,i c) cr ,J +3 Oc ,�( t 79,-2 m 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION m 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NC INSURED NO REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO - X It'ti)3_'1 o mi m 6'+9 ;20 n n — ( (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) m I hate ri c toed the article des(nbe d abos e a rn I has recc ne-d the- arttcle des(ride d abos< r,:)1 SIGNATURE Vdill,,,,, \Litho!,,, d .went JO SIGNATURE , ,, O �Jt4 �uthcnr- nt i N V) a < l C a C 4 !,- - w m DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK o RI O D D - 2 5 ADDRESS (Complete only r(requested) Z — O O 5 ADDRESS (Complete only if reg Jested.i n n m aa m -4 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'S m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'S 0 I INITIALS O INITIALS c t r r Ruben Baumgartner 4866 Weld County Road ##67 Keenesburg, Colo 80643 4F'VDFR Complete item; ' Add vour address in the "RETURN TO space on 3 reverse 1 'I he following;s(vice is requested (check one) Show to vv hom and date dcliv cred 25( Flanigan Land & Cattle Co. Li Show to vv horn, late,&address of delivery -)5(" 1022 Humbolt ❑ RLSTRI(TED DELIVERY Shots t.)v.horn arid datedclicered 85( RESTRICTED DELIVERY Denver, Colorado 80218 Show to vs tom atc, and address of delivery SI 05 a (Fee s shown arc in addition to postage charges and other fees) ----------------------- - -- ------------ ----- 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO t c r 1 [CUBE ' /J_?i rrn 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO 1,40322 O (7) (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) Cr I have receteed the article described above en SIGNATURE Not it'su e \uthoriit d ,tcy nt Russell Hayes ur 4 24545 Highway #522 m DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK O Hudson, Colorado 80642 O 5 ADDRESS (Complete on/y if requested) O rn 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE CLERK'S O INITIAL (,(0I' 9 r1 20 s -- Bob Fritzler Box 343 Keenesburg, Colorado 80643 .r (n P ',L'\D} , t,trpletr Item; u 1 33 0 SI'5,DI R t,mpl,te derv. - %d 3 ,,i,� ac'dreca ,r me 'RF T RN 70'' space n Ad„ , i t ae1dres« le the ' RE'1. RN 10' splcr ,s;,,u SC b 1 'r h, tnllov,;oh _.,tc, I%ncq,,c-t,.1 l chc hc,ru sc'5iii e'r'q 'cstc,l ct,c'1,°tit —ta sl,cw.vtc ,,,,,.it in,l.lar'rv;,,,Id' :r ] Shrns r, nn�n.'`...'c .'-ii � Z Ti ins t,, bran; ',,t: a,l,i rr,s Ni " 'Pr ri r`r �' Sties"ir:" ,:a,.4itr :n:ltc'IS r,{„ctury RRSTR1t.I I I) DLi I\TRY --1 RLS'I1 I=,,11-D ail Psi RY Show r,whh,"IanUTdats.i.11cctrs, . . . . ',1uos, ft,' ,,.,m.'n,' . , „lc lrtinch . . ' RIsIIt11` 1113 DILIBIR1' RI.STRICI[I) DITIYTRY S is -t itc..rIJ 1,1,11,,,, „,Itc,•,or a,i' cy ' j .how t,, ", ',t- , t t f-flrs, '-,. (T•' Srlt,V II ,, ...I,I t , ' 1,) r%C,St.l,_i . ,3•;,t` ,tilt) ,IL , %Loy,ll _r. _, ai,.111.1 h 'J 1,r>,t,1:1' (I'll/c) di, 1 (,,'l' ft'-" ft<<;. - - - - - 2 ARTICLE ADDRFSSED TO 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO M Doi) Fritzier Flnnir,,I.. I..l.lci & Cattle Co. c Iiox 3't3 m 1022 TT„ •Ilr,I L 2 )c)c' C,,j 78-21 Z gq sifo lesbutT,, Color-1ulo r8n6' . A __ ARTICLE DESCRIPTION RE_,>T REGISTERED NO I CERTIFIED NO ,NSUREi7 NO EKED so CCEP)IriErl NO i, ,NaUREO NO - 23 13' 0323 m v�+�l'j_ 5 —.._,.— —.— - - __...__(Always rtaeal+,s,r;nature nt�sddreseee rsr agNn4} _____ _~-�-) (n _-------- (Always obtain signature of addressee r r agent)_,.—__ - _- _�_.�.� _.�._.__ m �Er ae:t'i5c'c, t',,' .Otitle ta„O1)O1 al7utt' % T a,e e^-r°,'ew t'-` -Art),le it '.s,r,bcd ,,L..,:,%, I r, Cr3 ">NAtUff ,; $ en'e CNPIUFRL ,A•{rl•, ,, ..,cl ,r , d ,tc 0 2 4 -r - - - - OATS Ge - c c POSTMARK r, DII,,E,ry F0S'rMARft Itl nl CIATE Cl O.__ i_RY 0 O b _ Ig' - - -- ---- - - - 2 I. 'r,DGRESS a 2 , ADDRESS E'Crrnctete only r'requested) ® Ccrr,�leta only,, requested.' c 0 0 i -i 5 : Pe NAM. R rE7LIVER BECAVSE • r, UNABLE TO r)C, ,VER BECAUSE CE ERK C LFltK'S IN1TIAl S puiTIALS 7 w SENDER C ornplete,temi o Add a,to .rddres, ,he -RE-El-RN,' TO ';p-,c. 9 IC', ,SC — m I Tilt f01 I t"',r r),_ , nuc I, rcq c-tt,l Icir,I. c, DSho,s r,,',I'un)an,l,1't ,I,'isuc,l . _ LShow h,,,thro,,Iat, .1,1rc,5 of ii'I%c1,, fl RISIRIC"'IEDDPI1,TRY ' Show 1, ' -ton.tnd„1 It, t,ctc,I . ' ® 1 OHSIRi( III) DII I\FRY ;Shoss ,I, 'rn,rlatc . -,'cl'_,',O1, ' ,ri) 51 ftt, 5110\t,it t . .'i ad liti„t 4,. I 0,1 t'c crtrUt, .iris', r,th" fcc)I P ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO A �' 1:0'14('1 1 'tR\'5S C 2 2 X Docket 7 1—'_1 r m ? ARTIER E DESCRIPTION _ REGISTERED NO CTRTIHED Nt) INSURED NC m 6403?''i m .— I __-_.___ — _____ Fii (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) - I m D ave re,rrscd the art,:I- ,-L'at/In tl An,, 21 ` `xIGNA1 LIRE Arldn U , 2' C' 4 - - - — -- - - •, - xi -DATE 01 DFLIVCRY I 'OSTMARK r b - - 2 E ADDRESS (Corotete orgy,e requested) 0 0 M x -4 aL m• . t' t(NAEJI F LO `Cf)IVr R FEC AJ.E �GL ERK° O INITIAL'. •011Z-7/114174r - T47:7- At .111°1"44CALIStiliWitkill /a 4•4,4 4-- • sg0-CAL.....--- ...„ ilAgg0if _ _ v r.... f S s a a -a a. i air if ♦ T a . C I Hello