Planning commission presses for clearer fees, enforcement steps for mine reclamation

Planning staff told the county Planning Commission that they expect to issue more notices of violation for mining reclamation plans that are not realistic and that the department will seek clearer fee and penalty guidance from the board of supervisors.

The discussion opened with staff asking the commission for guidance after a presentation about current reclamation issues and whether existing county code and the adopted general plan address enforcement and fees under SMARA. Commissioners and counsel discussed how enforcement, appeals and penalties flow between planning staff, the commission and the board of supervisors.

Commissioners emphasized that operators should receive clearer upfront information. A commissioner asked that the annual fee and the possibility of billing for staff time after an NOV be included in the operator application packet so new operators cannot say they were unaware. Planning staff confirmed a cover letter is currently sent with annual fees and agreed to add NOV and potential fee details to the application package.

Staff described practical problems with legacy reclamation plans that use boilerplate language (for example, a blanket requirement for “80% vegetation cover”) that may be impossible on rocky sites. Staff said older plans often require amendments and that operators sometimes copy past boilerplate without consulting botanists or nurseries, producing unrealistic seed lists and cost estimates. Commissioners urged flexibility in approved reclamation approaches that account for site-specific conditions and available seed stock.

On penalties, planning staff and counsel said county code allows administrative fines up to $5,000 but that the board of supervisors is the body that ultimately sets and adopts fee schedules. Planning staff asked the commission for input on a fee/penalty matrix; commissioners recommended staff prepare a proposed matrix for the commission to review and forward as a recommendation to the board. Counsel noted SMARA requires consideration of factors such as gravity of the violation, prior history, culpability and economic savings when imposing fines and cautioned against a rigid flat schedule that could conflict with state law.

Commissioners and staff agreed on a practical enforcement workflow: planning staff will attempt to resolve violations administratively when reasonable; if penalties are assessed and appealed, state law and the county code require appeals of administrative penalties to go to the board of supervisors. The commission also said it should continue to hear land-use appeals and be given an opportunity to resolve matters before those appeals reach the supervisors when staff believes the matter can be fixed without penalties.

Staff confirmed the county already bills actual staff time and costs (for example, certified mailing) to operator accounts and that those amounts are reflected in the county’s planning fee schedule and annual invoicing. Commissioners suggested any matrix should make fines large enough to deter noncompliance but leave room to account for the site- and operator-specific factors SMARA requires.

The conversation also covered operational details: applicants must include reclamation cost estimates when they apply; staff will push for realism in those estimates by encouraging consultation with botanists and nurseries; existing single-language, cookie‑cutter plans will require amendments. Staff said, where operators repeatedly refuse to amend unrealistic plans, enforcement and penalties are more likely.

Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer front‑end guidance to operators, to draft a penalty/fine matrix for commission review, and to continue coordinating with county counsel on appeals procedures. Staff said they will return with proposed materials and will issue NOVs more often where plans are demonstrably unrealistic.