Proposed Anaerobic Digestor
The following is the letter that the Friends of Polk County sent to the Polk County Planning Commission.
TO: Polk County Planning Department
RE: CU 24-14 Anaerobic Digestor on EFU land
Friends of Polk County reviewed this application and notes several deficiencies. The applicant failed to identify the use of surrounding properties and potential negative effects on accepted farm and forest activities for those properties. In addition, the applicant failed to describe how the extensive infrastructure of the facility would be removed and the land returned to agricultural use when the facility was no longer in use. We urge the planning staff to deny this application.
ZONING ORDINANCE 36.060. GENERAL REVIEW STANDARDS [OAR 660-033-0130(5)1].
To ensure compatibility with farming and forestry activities, the Planning Director or hearings body shall determine that the proposed use meets the following requirements:
(A) The proposed use will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and
(B) The proposed use will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.
The county asked for additional information on:
(1) surrounding land uses
(2) the farm and forest operations on those lands
(3) the accepted farm and forestry practices employed by these surrounding operations
(4) the impacts the proposed non-farm use would have on accepted farm and forestry practices and the cost of accepted farm and forestry practices, and
(5) why the predicted impacts would not be significant.
The applicant’s response was “The adjacent and surrounding properties are primarily engaged in growing feed for dairy cattle and hazelnut production.”
This reply is inadequate and does reflect the variety of farm and forestry uses in the surrounding area. As shown elsewhere in the record, a significant number of vineyards and wineries are in the vicinity. These are legitimate farm uses that could be significantly impacted by the proposed non-farm use and potential impacts and mitigation of these impacts have not been addressed by the applicant.
State and local land use regulations require that EFU land is restored to farm use after renewable energy facilities are no longer needed.
The facility proposed includes:
1) an in-ground 63x40x10 foot lined, concrete, open equalizer pit
2) three gas-tight concrete in-ground 302x220x20 foot anaerobic digestors
3) gas upgrade system on a 125x110 foot concrete pad
4) 2,000 gallon above ground tank
5) 10x23x12 foot lined concrete pit
6) 10x10x12 foot concrete pit
7) 300,000 gallon above ground storage tank
8) 3-sided building on a 200x125 foot concrete pad
9) 30 ft thermal oxidizer
10) 35-45 ft flare
11) 110x75 ft mechanical building
The applicant states that “At the end of the lease period the land could be restored for the planting of crops, at the lessor’s option.”
This response is inadequate. Nothing in the current application (CU 24-14) indicates the liability of the lessor or lessee with respect to decommissioning of the renewable energy facility. The county should require a specific plan for bonding or other security to ensure that the property is returned to farm use in a manner that is similar to requirements for solar energy and wind energy facilities.
Using solar power facilities as an example for the decommissioning process:
• The solar developer shall (1) craft a suitable decommissioning plan to remove the solar installation at the end of its useful life or the end the agreement period, whichever comes first, and (2) commit adequate funds upfront through an enforceable bond to pay for implementing that decommissioning plan
• The decommissioning process shall restore the land to a state which is equal to or better than it was prior to the solar installation on two interrelated measures: a) overall soil health, and b) suitability of the land for agricultural production. Generally speaking, decommissioning would involve removal of all structures and facilities, both above and below ground, that were part of the solar installation; however, it may be that some structures, such as fencing, may have also served the farm operation, and as such, might be retained to support ongoing agricultural use of the property.
In summary, we urge the county to deny this application unless the applicant can demonstrate no significant negative impacts on surrounding farm uses and also accepts liability for restoring the land for agriculture use when the facility is no longer needed.
