c bar m points to hit at hearing

8/9/2019 C Bar M Points to Hit at Hearing

1/7

Lack of proper notice:

At least four residents within one mile of the facility proposing to expand never received notice of the

hearing, and therefore were not allowed an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the hearing

process by submitting substantive written comment.

y Bruce & Kandee Schulz. 420 W. 275 S., Jerome, ID* (county records indicate notice was mailed)y Scott & Barbara Walker. 412 W. 2175 S., Jerome, IDy Marvin VandenBosch. 281 S. 400 W., Jerome, ID* (county records indicate notice was mailed)y Doug Buell. 428 W. 275 S., Jerome, ID

Application problems: Conflicts with the County Ordinance/Comprehensive Plan:

Topo mapdoes not show dairy at corner ofBob Barton and 2400E/500W Rd. This dairy is the Ted

Miller Dairy. Its address is 500 Bob Barton Rd. Five facilities within just the area covered by the topo

map.

Vicinity mapshows two abandoned injection wells in Southwest corner of land application field.

Application only contains one abandoned injection well closure file.

Shows a ditch running south from land application area near a pond that runs straight to the canal.

Shows an injection well in the corner of a field adjacent to Stouder Holsteins (northern boundary of the

C Bar M property). Shows another injection well in a field between 300 S and 400 S Road.

Vicinity map shows 213 between proposed compost area and canal. Less than that between feed

storage area and canal. According to neighbors, dairy already uses land East of facility property

boundary to land-apply liquid waste and consistently sprays wastewater into canal. Dairy pivotappears on only one map submitted to the county.

It appears that the facility has already begun construction on proposed pond #4 (along north-west

corner of facility).

Site mapdoes not show distance between proposed corrals and ditch running along East side of LCO

boundary.

One well on-property is 133 from compost area. Another on-property well is 145 from proposed pond

#4 and another is 244 from this same well. The distance between existing corrals north of parlor and a

well on the east side of the parlor is not shown. A well East of the hospital shed (old parlor) is 98 fromproposed corrals on the NorthEast side of the LCO and 253 from the proposed corrals on the SouthEast

side of the LCO

Distance between well on the Southwest corner of the LCO property and calf hutches is not clearly

statedeither 66 or 132

Compost area across street from facility structures is 622 from property line.


2/7

Comments submitted to demonstrate compliance with applicable LCO ordinanceClaims all property is

in A1 zone, but application states A2 (comments, page 6)

Claims 4080.48 animal units on 563.035 acres. (comments, 6)

Ordinance states all structures and confinement areas [13-4.01], but the comment doesnt address

structurescompost piles, new milk parlor, etc. (comments, 7)

Ordinance states that all water wells shall be a minimum of 300ft [13-4.02] and the comment admits

that the facility does not meet this requirement. Claims that wells are at least 145 from lagoons.

(comments, 7)

Comment does not address solid waste storage area distances from the canal or property line as per

[13-4.04] (comments, 7).

Comment claims that all proposed facility improvements are several miles from nearest A-2 (comments,

8)

The Jerome County Highway District letter describes the impact of the proposed expansion, but does

not comment on that impact.

Letter from NutrientManagement planner clearly states that wastewater applications should begin and

end with the irrigation season. No application will be allowed to frozen or snow covered groundyet

this has been common practice at C Bar M over the past ten years.

Siting Team Report problems:

The siting team report on the C BarM Dairy (a.k.a. Ted Miller Dairy) expansion application is fraught

with inconsistencies and errors.

Wrong Countysiting team report states that facility is located in Twin Falls County. This is (obviously)

incorrect.

Water quality datasiting team report sites data from wells that are upgradient and far distant from the

facility. This data was used to justify a low risk water quality rating. (See: GoogleMaps printouts). At

maximum, the siting team report includes 4 wells that are downgradient of the facility. DEQ report on

Possible Sources of Nitrate and Emerging Contaminates to the Springs of Southern Gooding County

(Ground Water Quality Technical Report No. 38, December 2009) found livestock only antibiotics and

hormones in addition to nitrate in ground water and surface water; a map included with the reportshows that C Bar M is within the spring capture zone area that is the source of the contamination at

the Springs. The siting team report does not include any data on domestic wells in the area. IDWR maps

show far more than 9 wells within 5 miles of the facility.

We have mapped out the ISDA well data provided in the application to the county, along with the

IDWR/USGS wells. The siting team report states that, "From the data provided, the mean nitrate

concentration in ground water within a five mile radius is approximately 2.8 mg/L." Based on the


3/7

Google map we prepared (on the same set of data that the S.T reviewed), it would appear that-- ATTHE

MAX-- only three of the 43 wells that the siting team considered or included in their report are actually

down gradient of this facility. Thus the manner in which the water quality is presented in the siting

team report is extremely misleading. Specifically, the statement that the "mean nitrate concentration in

ground water within a 5 mile radius is approximately 2.8 mg/L" is particularly misleading as the mean

nitrate concentration of wells within a five miles radius is NOT indicative of water quality down gradient

of the facility.

Further, it would appear based on ISDA records that the S.T. only looked at nine wells within a five mile

radius. Interestingly enough, only two of the wells have any "current" nitrate data (and that data is

still four years old--2006), with the most recent data on IDWR Site ID: 424051114401801 (one of the

three down gradient wells) being 16 years old! IDWR maps show definitely that there are FAR more

than nine wells within this five mile radius and down gradient of this facility, where is that data? Also,

what is the depth of the wells calculated to achieve this mean nitrate data? We have limited data on

the USGS and IDWR wells, but absolutely no water depth data on the 38 ISDA wells that were included

in the ISDA Ground Water Monitoring Program information in the expansion application. Were theydeep wells, shallow wells, a combination thereof? If this information was considered at all, there is no

indication in the records we have reviewed.

The siting team report also claims a 10 year time of travel for groundwater under the facility to the

nearest springs. This is incorrect. The time of travel is actually 3 years, giving the facility a high risk

rating.

Water level datasiting team report uses IDWR hydro online map to show average depth to water is

greater than 100 ft. This data was used to justify a low risk rating for potential well contamination.

Problem: these wells do not include Domestic wells downgradient of the facility or its land application

fields. Those domestic wells may be shallower and thus more vulnerable to contamination (See: IDWR

maps printouts).

Water quantity dataThere is some discrepancy as to whether or not there are sufficient water rights

and/or a legal transfer in order to accommodate additional animals. In a January 8, 2010 letter sent by

James E. Stanton, Sr. Water Resource Agent at IDWR to Jerome County Mr. Stanton states that "Right

36-7364A, currently held by Greg and Jane Ledbetter, is available to provide the additional volume IF

(my emphasis) an approved water transfer can be obtained from this Department. Since the proposed

expansion is not supposed to occur for some time, Dustin told me that the owners plan to grow hay in a

pivot corner this year in order to provide the maximum amount of water volume per acre for the

transfer that they plan to file later this year". Where is the approved transfer? IV.Additional

Information on the siting team report states "CAFO operations require stock water and/or commercial

water rights. The owner needs to ensure adequate water rights for the proposed facility. Issues

involving water availability/rights are matters to be heard and decided by IDWR." Since a representative

for the facility owner, Dustin Olsen was present for the siting team inspection, as well as Craig Tesch, a

Hydrogeologist for IDWR, it is not clear why no approved transfer application was offered to address

the January 8th letter from Mr.Stanton. Does C Bar M have an approved water right/transfer or not?


4/7

The water level data the siting team does provide indicates that water levels have dropped sharply in

those wells over the past several years, indicating a potential water quantity issue. (See: IDWR hydro

online printouts). Information from neighbors living near the facility also indicates a potential water

quantity issue.

Neighbors well information

Doug Buellwell dropped at least 30 ft in 2008. Same well different property went dry in 2008.

Rusty Wilkinsonhad to go down 30 ft in the last 20 years

Steve Carlsonwell was 180ft and went down another 80ft in 2005.

Bill Jacobwell went dry in 2005. Lost the pump and everything.

Risk Assessmentthe siting team assigned the C BarMs proposed expansion a "Moderate Risk" rating.

However, the Index 1 Equation score of 33.5 falls into a "grey" area which calls for "professional

judgment". The Index 2 Equation score is 7.5. According to the guidance printed on the S.T. report, "If

Index 2 is greater than 3.25, moderate risk; if less than 2.75, low risk, 2.75 to 3.25, is borderline and

professional judgment should be used to determine final risk." 7.5 is significantly higher than 3.25, so

how did the S.T. come up with a Moderate Risk?

From what we can ascertain the Siting Team never reviewed ISDA's C Bar M file(s). If you had done so,

you would have discovered that this facility has had five discharges, including a major Clean Water Act

violation in February, 2008 for discharging liquid manure into the Canal J, which leads to the Snake

River. Once again based on public records obtained from ISDA, this facility operated (with ISDA's full

knowledge) with an unapproved, improperly lined lagoon from at least August 12, 1996 until June 7,

2005, almost a full nine years of operating in continuous non-compliance. In fact, the June 7, 2005

Construction Inspection Report states, "ponds are being cleaned and lined for inspection", however

there are NO follow-up records to indicate that the lagoon was in fact lined and/or inspected by ISDA or

anyone else for that matter.

Another major issue that should have been addressed by the Siting Team but was not is the fact that this

facility is in exceedance of state threshold phosphorus levels, and has been since at least 2003!

According to a letter dated January 21, 2003, the "Blessing" field is a ground water resource concern

with a phosphorus level of 31 ppm. The "Dairy pivot" is a surface water concern with a phosphorus level

of 59 (a full 19 points above the 40 ppm threshold that this letter states the producer MAY NOT

EXCEED). There is no mention of mitigation strategies, further testing, etc. until the next set of field

testing in October, 2005. In October 2005 the facilitys fields were also over the phosphorous thresholds.

FEMA Flood Zonethe Jerome County FEMA maps show this facility in a 100-year flood zone. The

Gooding County FEMA maps show that the facility is not in a flood zone. There is no record of any


5/7

attempt to determine where this discrepancy came from or attempt to explain why the siting team

chose to favor Gooding Countys FEMA map over and above Jerome Countys map.

Facility/Producer History of Non-compliance & State and county enforcement failures:

PermitAs late as 7/31/08, there were two milk permits (with inspections) registered to Jane Ledbetter

at 268 S. 500 W., Jerome: 401709 and 401710. Prior to March 7, 2007, no record of Permit 410710.

Unauthorized expansion? Starting in October 25, 2006 and continuing through 2007, ISDA inspection

reports repeatedly emphasize the need for a new nutrient management plan to incorporate all

changes. An entirely new lagoon appears on facility inspection reports in October 2006. It is not clear

whether the NMP was ever updated from original warnings about the need for a new NMP (in October

2006) until November 2009.

Jerome County Highway District letter contained in expansion application file states that the facilitys

animal numbers will increase from 3,065 to 3,900.

IDWR letter dated January 8, 2010 states that the facility will need water to water 2,640 animals(according to recent inspection reports, the facility is already housing 3,050 animals)

Table 1: Sanitation records

7/31/08 Permit 401710 ISDA Grade A dairy farm inspection report

3/19/08 Permit 401710 Coliform bacteria analysis report

9/28/07 Permit 401709 Coliform bacteria analysis reportSW

7/3/07 New parlor start-up but same producer.

3/7/07 Permit #401710 issued to Greg and Jane Ledbetter, 268 S. 500 W.

3/7/07 Permit #401710. Herd size: currently 1400; maximum 1700

Table 2: Waste records

3/29/2010 First mention of revised NMP (Dustin Olsen/Hillary Simpson NMP)

11/2009 NMP rewritten. No record of revised NMP until March 2010

7/31/08 Inspection report notes a total of3050 cows on facility (2050 milkers, 1000 heifers).

7/21/08 Waste facility inspection report notes that NMP needs to be rewritten (not clear if this is

referring to Tami Frank NMP or older NMP).

9/28/07 NMP being rewritten by Tami Frank. 2907 cows (1800 milkers, 1107 dry, heifers not

included)

6/29/07 New barn facility has qualified10/24/06 Third lagoon appears in inspection reports. Notes that NMP must be rewritten at the

time the new barn is qualified. (Niebling/Young NMP)

8/10/06 Jerome County letter indicates that the facility is permitted to house 2115 cows.

7/11/05 Jerome County letter indicates that the facility is permitted to house 2000 milking cows.

6/7/05 Construction inspection report notes that lagoons are being cleaned and lined for

inspection, but there are no follow-up records to indicate whether the lagoons were

ever in fact properly lined (soil samples, etc.) or inspected.


6/7

10/30/02 Inspection report notes that only 2 lagoons are approved for waste containment in

NMP. Run-off pond not recorded. NMP needs to be updated

3/23/99 Records show total of3,330 cows (including heifers, dry and milk (1500)).

Waste/animal care

2/20/08 Discharge into Canal J; fined $5,800 by EPA. ISDA waste inspection summary does not record

this discharge.

11/1/07 Notice of violation for failure to vaccinate 100+ cows; fined $500

10/24/06 East lagoon-- no freeboard. Marv Patten claims this is the design of the lagoon. No fine

assessed/action taken by ISDA

5/26/06 Letter: Fields over phosphorous thresholds. No follow-up records.

11/23/05 Lab results: Fields over phosphorous thresholds.

10/28/05 Lab results: Fields over phosphorous thresholds.

6/7/05 Construction inspection report: ponds not yet approved for use. No follow-up records.

10/19/04 Pressurized waste discharge onto road. Marv Patten claims that this discharge was for Ted

Miller Dairyproblem: Ted Miller Dairy then-owned by Jane Ledbetter.

5/25/04 C-M Pressurized waste discharge onto road. 5/28 sample results show total coliform=

649,000MPN/100ML; Fecal coliform=80,000MPN/100ml; E-coli=44,600 MPN/100ml. No

fine assessed/action taken by ISDA.

12/4/03 Ted Miller Dairy (455 Bob Barton Rd.) cited for failing to keep proper records with respect to

nutrient management plansoil tests in particular.

3/13/03 Ted Miller Dairy (455 Bob Barton Rd.) cited for phosphorous exceedances in three fields.

10/30/02 Unapproved run-off pond being used for waste containment. No fine assessed/action taken

by ISDA.

2/27/02 Due to run-off, south lagoon over-topped west bank and flowed into field. Also, piping

between south lagoon and main lagoon plugged-- stopping over-flow from entering main

lagoon. Trench was dug to return over-flow into main lagoon.Main lagoon is overflowinglow bank on top southwest side. No fine assessed/action taken by ISDA

2/22/01 East side of South pond shows evidence of overflow. No fine assessed/action taken by

ISDA.

6/16/99 ISDA receives complaint about Ted Miller Dairy (455 Bob Barton Rd.) spraying manure across

county road through irrigation pivot.

2/25/98 ISDA receives complaint about manure being hauled from Ted Miller Dairy (455 Bob Barton

Rd.) being spilled all over county road.

12/27/96 Ted Miller Dairy (455 Bob Barton Rd.) discharges waste water from overflow containment

area into canal ditch (and subsequently into main canal).

4/11/96 Routine ISDA inspection finds that manure haulers to and from Ted Miller Dairy (455 Bob

Barton Rd.) are spilling manure on roads8/12/96 Confidential fax transmission fromMichael Mitchell, ISDA to Greg Ledbetter re: lagoon

lining-- "Percentage of clay is too low in this sample. You need to have another test done by

NRCS soil scientist or a soil lab. These results probably aren't very indicative of the actual

soil. Try for a sample on the bottom of the lagoon. Call me if you have any questions." No

follow-up action until June 2005. Even then it is still not clear that ponds were properly

lined.


7/7

ISDA Sanitation file records (C-M onlyhave not yet received TedMiller Sanitation files)

Inadequate water quality

positive for fecal coliform

February 10, 2010 (Remedied by having an industry representative take

a sample and have it analyzed. Problems with the industry

representatives record keeping (see: 3/6/10 Coliform Bacteria Analysis

Report)); September 21, 2004;

Drugs in Milk September 20, 2000

Black mold in milking parlor November 20, 2009; February 20, 2009; October 24, 2006; June 28,

2006; October 28, 2005; October 28, 2004; February 21, 2001; October

27, 2000

repair toilet room door July 29, 2009; January 29, 2009; February 27, 2002; October 27, 2000;

August 4, 1999; June 11, 1998; December 20, 1995; June 1, 1993;

Improper disposal of toilet

paper

February 21, 2001; October 27, 2000

Disconnect chemical line

from milk balance tank when

not in use

July 29, 2009; September 28, 2007;

replace recording charts atthe appropriate time

July 29, 2009;

Repair floor drain in parlor

pit-- plugged (pooled

water/waste).

January 29, 2009;

Hand towels/dispenser soap. June 29, 2007; March 1, 2007; February 22, 2001;

Replace ceiling vent October 24, 2006; June 28, 2006; October 28, 2005

Manure/dust on ceiling February 23, 2006;

Misc.:

Animal Number DiscrepanciesSee above.

Procedural Issues (apart from lack of proper notice):

County Ordinance does not provide adequate notice generallyonly 21 days prior to the hearing. This

deadline ought to be set in reference to the deadline to submit written comment.

c bar m points to hit at hearing

Documents