Humboldt County supervisors approve 400-head non-construction expansion for hog site

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors members approved acceptance of the manure management plan (MMP) score for a non-construction expansion that allows 400 additional hogs at an existing confinement site, the board confirmed at its public meeting (date not specified).

The action accepts a revised matrix score for the permit application; county staff said the expansion is a “non-construction” change — no new buildings — and the site’s revised score is 460 points, above the 440-point threshold required by county rules.

Kent, a county staff member who presented the application, said the request is “a simple 400 ad non construction expansion,” and that the change does not alter the physical buildings on the property. He explained the matrix scoring adjustments resulted mainly from a newly built house west of the site becoming the second-closest residence, which reduced the score on the closest-neighbor question by 35 points but left the overall score above the approval cutoff.

Kent summarized the manure management details the board reviewed. He said the operation’s nutrient management plan currently lists about 15 fields totaling roughly 700 acres available for manure application and that, under the farm’s rotation, applications could occur on an every-other-year basis. Kent said the site uses shallow pits in the barns and a formed concrete slurry tank for outside storage, and that the operator has committed to injecting or incorporating manure on the same day it is land-applied, a practice the presenter described as a lifetime commitment tied to the permit.

Kent provided two production figures while explaining scale and application rates, saying that, when scaled to a 4,800-head site, it “produces just under a 600,000 gallons,” and later that “that'd be a million 6 per year.” The board and staff did not reconcile those two numbers during the presentation; the article reports both figures as stated by the presenter.

Board members asked questions about distances, the matrix scoring items, tax-credit and exemption qualifications, and manure-application acreage. Kent explained the county’s scoring run‑through: the application scored full points on items for additional separation distances to public uses, for the absence of other confinements within key radii, for certain water‑protection criteria, and for the operator’s environmental management system and a truck turnaround on site. He also noted the operator qualifies for a homestead-related credit in the scoring criteria and for a family‑farm tax credit, items that contributed points under the county matrix.

A supervisor moved to accept the MMP score and the permit paperwork; another supervisor seconded. The board voted by voice; the chair called for “All in favor, aye,” and later announced “Motion carries.” Kent told the board he expected the applicant, Steve, to receive formal approval from the county in the next couple of weeks.

The board’s action is limited to accepting the revised score and paperwork for a non-construction expansion. County staff emphasized the approval does not authorize physical building changes and that the permit includes ongoing conditions described in the submitted environmental management and manure management plans.

Votes at the meeting were taken by voice; no roll-call tally with individual votes was recorded in the meeting transcript for this item.