Commissioner's Minutes 04-11b-06

COMMISSIONERS MINUTES APRIL 11, 2006

The Elmore County Commissioners met in special session to hold a public hearing in the upstairs courtroom, Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4^th East, Mountain Home, Idaho, on the above date.

The public hearing was held to hear public comment regarding a proposed Ordinance defining and establishing confined animal feeding operations (CAFO’s).

Present at the public hearing was Chairperson Mary Egusquiza, Commissioners Larry Rose and Connie Cruser. Also present was Prosecutor Schindele and Deputy Clerk Steele.

Chairperson Egusquiza opened the hearing and stated a letter had been received from Ron Parks who works for Simplot Livestock Company:

April 7, 2006

Commissioners, Elmore County, 150 South 4^th East, Suite 3, Mountain Home, Idaho 83647.

Re: Comments on Draft Elmore County CAFO Ordinance

Commissioners:

Thank you for providing the Simplot Livestock Company with the opportunity to submit written comments regarding the proposed Confined Animal Feeding Ordinance. We hope that our comments will help the County produce a CAFO Ordinance that provides reasonable and prudent conditional use requirements for CAFO agricultural operations.

Specific Comments

Definitions

C XII Process for CAFO Operation Permit:

C F. For all CAFO facilities managing liquid waste continued proof of liability insurance shall be submitted to the County.”

What is “liquid waste”? If this section remains in the Ordinance, a definition is needed. What is the County intent?

Please consider these comments in the final ordinance. For your convenience, I have enclosed a redline draft with my suggested changes. And for any questions that you may have or for further clarification, please contact me at 455-4834 or ron.parks@simplot.com

Sincerely, Ron Parks, Environmental Manager

Enclosure

Chairperson Egusquiza called the first person signed up to speak.

Lt. Col Winkler from Mountain Home Air Force Base presented a copy of a letter signed by Colonel Robert E. Broderick, Vice Wing Commander of the Mountain Home Air Force Base. The letter reads:

Colonel Robert E. Broderick

Vice Commander

366 Gunfighter Avenue, Suite 331

Mountain Home AFB, ID 83648-5442

Elmore County Commissioners

150 South 4^th East

Mountain Home, ID 83647

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Ordinance. The proposed ordinance change which would allow CAFO’s to be established two miles from the perimeter of the base concerns us. As a landowner in the community, we want to work with Elmore County to cooperatively develop compatible use of land in and around the installation. Doing so will ensure safe and continuous flight operations and provide for the quality of life for base personnel, residential, agriculture, commercial, and other land owners near and adjacent to Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.

Any CAFO within close proximity to the base raises concerns about the potential for degradation of the aquifer and resulting water quality. The Idaho State Confined Animal Feeding Operating (CAFO) Siting Team Site Suitability Determination, dated December 15, 2004, supports our concern for the potential long term impact on the aquifer. This Suitability Determination for the proposed Rhead dairy noted that “there are approximately 41, 230 animal units within a five mile radius of the proposed Rhead Dairy...According to the IDEQ map, there are approximately 10,500 irrigated acres in the local area. From a nutrient management (phosphorus uptake) perspective, the local area is reaching its maximum threshold to adequately handle the waste produced without excessive hauling.” The Rhead Dairy was determined by the CAFO Siting Team to pose a moderate risk of environmental damage in part because of the large amount of animal waste and associated difficulties involved with management of this waste.

Our data shows that nitrate levels in our base drinking water wells are increasing. The above cited December 15, 2004, Suitability Determination also noted an increasing trend in nitrate concentrations. Additional nitrogen compounds from increased animal waste could add to this trend and pose a threat to safe drinking water sources.

The close proximity to our installation of future CAFOs allows for the possibility that offensive odors could degrade the quality of life for 1,324 families and almost 900 Airmen in our family housing and dormitories. The proposed CAFO ordinance requires an applicant to submit an odor management plan only if such plan is required by any regulatory agencies with authority over the proposed CAFO. However, the contents of such plan are not spelled out in the ordinance CAFO. This is also true for a pest abatement plan. Our concern for such vagueness is that it may allow for increases in unpleasant odors and pests and thus, have a negative impact on the base.

Finally, like a number of airports in this country, we are constantly monitoring bird populations attracted to water and feed. We are concerned that water and/or effluent retention areas allowed by this proposed ordinance may create flyways across the base creating additional hazard for our aircrews. Aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife annually causes millions of dollars in damage to Air Force aircraft and may result in loss of aircraft and crews.

We believe there are avenues available to you to ameliorate our concerns. The proposed ordinance describes a 2 mile buffer measured from the base perimeter in which CAFO development would not be permitted. As the attached map depicts, there is an existing Airport Hazard Zone (AHZ) that currently surrounds the base and limits activities with the zone. If the County Commission revised the proposed CAFO ordinance to create a 2 mile buffer around the existing AHZ, such a buffer would provide greater physical separation between the base and any future permitted CAFOs. Such a buffer would be complementary to the prohibition in the proposed ordinance which requires CAFOs to be located a minimum of two miles outside the defined Area of Impact of any incorporated municipality within Elmore County.

We encourage you to ensure that all management practices detailed in the proposed ordinance are strictly followed by CAFO operators because without proper enforcement and effective monitoring of the affects, these management practices have little assurance of positive outcomes. Additionally, mismanagement of the plan could pose serious long term health issues.

Lastly, the commission might consider adopting a “graduated capacity” analysis. This effort would decrease the size of CAFO operations as you get closer to the installation. Thus, reducing potential for environmental and bird hazard concerns.

We support your efforts of promoting compatible use of the lands near Mountain Home Air Force Base and also protecting the quality of life of those living in Elmore County. Encouraging compatible development allows for potential growth and protects our military mission. The 366^th Fighter Wing and Elmore County have a strong, mutually beneficial relationship. We look forward to continuing this relationship in the future.

Should you have any questions, please contact the base community planner, Mr. Richard Schuech, 366 CES/CECP, at 828-1330.

Sincerely, /S/ ROBERT E. BRODERICK, Colonel, USAF

Lt. Col. Winkler stated there were three major issues. 1. Water Quality 2. Odors and 3. Bird strikes to flying aircraft. He talked about nitrates, odors on the base and the birds that are attracted by available food and water. He suggested possible solutions could be a two mile buffer around the airport hazard zone or a graduated capacity of CAFO operations closer to the base use a formula to where they are less dense and as they go farther away from the base the amount increases. Richard Schuech, Base Civil Engineer, came forward and stated the legally described perimeter of the Air Force Base extends beyond the current airport hazard zone in some areas. Chairperson Egusquiza asked them to show on the map they brought where the existing dairies are now. They also brought a duplicate map for the Commissioners. He also stated the nutrient management plans would be a big interest to the base and how they will be applied especially on the boundaries of the base regarding nitrates and birds.

Nick Nettleton, 18542 Wilson Road, Glenns Ferry, ID, spoke next. On page 3, the definition of CAFO: (a) Animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days any twelve-month period. Mr. Nettleton stated the State statute is 90 days and that is what we must use. Commissioner Rose stated they know that they can’t use the 180 days, after reviewing the letter from Ron Parks.

The definition of CAFO defines a medium CAFO. Mr. Nettleton questioned registering the medium CAFO’s hoping the Board would give the Planning and Zoning Commission some guidance, there would have to be a public hearings, who would pay for the public hearings, etc..

On page 8 item B. the last sentence reads: The Commission shall review each Registration Notice and shall make a determination regarding the completeness and accuracy of the Registration Notice within thirty (30) days of the meeting. Mr. Nettleton stated putting a 30 day limit on this is not realistic.

On page 10, second paragraph: The Site Plan shall clearly delineate a line enclosing all CAFO improvements. Mr. Nettleton would like it to read: The Site Plan should clearly delineate the outer perimeter of the CAFO facility area. The CAFO facility area can be larger than the edges of the improvements but if we designate the CAFO facility area then we have a line to start with. It would just be clearer.

K. C. Duerig, 4199 N. Meridian, King Hill, ID submitted suggested additions:

IV. CAFO SITING PERMIT REQUIRED:

On page 9, paragraph B. The CAFO Siting Permit may be transferred with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The Administrator shall be given notice of the transfer of a CAFO Siting Permit setting forth the date of the transfer and the name, mailing address and telephone number of the party to whom the permit is being transferred. The Board shall verify the validity of the existing CAFO Siting Permit and may institute investigation of any possible Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act or other regulatory agency violations before granting approval of the transfer. CAFO Siting Permits are appurtenant to the location for which they are granted, shall not be transferred to any other location, and are binding on transferees.

C. If construction is not commenced within one (1) year of issuance of the New or Expanding CAFO Siting Permit, the Applicant shall appear before the Commission to show proof of measurable progress toward a complete project and must be presented before the Commission and must pay a renewal fee equal to the original fee. The applicant shall reappear on a yearly basis thereafter to show cause why the New of Expanding CAFO has not been completed. A one year extension may be granted by the Commission upon receipt of such proof and payment of an escalating renewal fee. Said escalating fee shall be double the previous renewal fee. If the CAFO is not a working CAFO within five years of the permit being issued, the Commission may revoke the permit. Once revoked, the Applicant may reapply. Re-application shall be governed by statutes, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the date of re-application. (Suggested changes in italics)

Debbie Lord, 2611 North TK Lane, Mayfield, spoke about the medium CAFO that it has been designated by the EPA and she is not sure that it can be included in the Ordinance. She also stated you can’t have the third party recipient be part of the nutrient management plan, you can require that the CAFO has contracts, but third party recipients can’t be part of the nutrient management plan. In section 12 it states: Process for CAFO Operation Permit - “For all CAFO Facilities managing liquid waste continued proof of liability insurance shall be submitted to the County annually.” There needs to be a definition of liquid waste.

Dave Bergh, 6025 Highway 30, Mountain Home, is with the Elmore County Agri-Business Coalition. He made a couple observations, the first being nitrates in the aquifer that the gentlemen from the base talked about. That would be addressed in the nutrient management plan for example, the way the lagoons would be built and managed. Regarding the bird strikes, the base has been right in the middle of the Birds of Prey area for years and is close to the river. Traffic patterns fly right through that area. He doesn’t see that CAFO’s would add a significant amount of birds as most of the species of birds in that area are low flyers. As far as the base wanting an additional two mile buffer, that would be a hardship on the landowners. As you increase the buffer zone you are increasing the acreage. He stated we have been reviewing this ordinance for over nine months now and thinks the agriculture side has given on a number of different fronts and could live with it as written. They would be adamantly opposed to spot zoning in reference to built up residential areas. It has already been talked about and it was decided there was no definition of a built up residential area and we need to stand by current Planning and Zoning Ordinance regarding residential areas. He also stated the Coalition stands by Ron Parks recommendations.

Nick Nettleton came forward again, On page 8 paragraph C: The Commission shall provide the Applicant written notice within thirty (30) days of it’s decision as to whether the Application is complete and accurate. He feels that holding the public hearing is for making the decision as to whether the application is complete and accurate. He would suggest to strike the words “and accurate” from that paragraph.

Richard Appleton, 2700 W. 36^th S. Mountain Home, wanted to talk about the built up residential areas again. He feels that a good definition would be 4 houses on a 20 acre parcel and then radiate out from that, for example 6 houses for 30 acres. If that many houses are encompassed in a small designated area then the CAFO should stay a certain distance from those houses. He referenced Mr. Bergh in that when a person moves in to an area where a dairy is they are at fault, but when the dairy moves in after the people are already there that shouldn’t be allowed. We need to have guidelines for this.

Mike Grimmett, 2645 E. 18^th S. Mountain Home, stated he respects Mr. Appleton’s comments, but when you live in an ag zoned area you will have ag operations taking place. Those areas were set aside through the ordinance for ag operations. Mr. Grimmett wanted to make sure that was part of the record.

There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Egusquiza closed the hearing.