Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-04088-29196 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DE An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. PL -20, The Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, As Amended, Revising Provisions Concerning Surface Mining, And Declaring An Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 88-040 'ES "COUNTY , GON THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is further amended by adoption the introductory statement, goal, and policies, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, as the surface mining chapter of the plan. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as part of its findings and conclusions in support of the amendment set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance the memoranda from county legal counsel to the Board, dated November 30 and December 12, 1988, attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C" and incorporated herein. Section 3. The Board makes the following additional findings and conclusions in support of the amendment in Section 1 of this Ordinance: a. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on September 28, 1988, the Deschutes County Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the surface mining chapter of the plan and received public testimony and staff reports. b. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on October 12, 1988, the Planning Commission held a work session at which it reviewed and considered public testimony and staff reports, and developed and recommended for adop- tion by the Board of County Commissioners proposed amend- ments to the surface mining chapter of the plan. C. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on November 9, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the amendments to the surface mining chapter of the plan proposed by the Planning Commission, and received public testimony and staff reports. d. After the giving of public notice as required by law, on December 14, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners held a ORDINANCE NO. 88-040 0995 continuation of the November 9, 1988, public hearing on the proposed amendments to the surface mining chapter of the plan, and received further public testimony and staff reports recommending further modifications to the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. e. The introductory statement, goal and policies attached hereto as Exhibit "A" have been recommended for adoption by staff and county legal counsel. f. The introductory statement, goal and policies attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and adopted by this Ordinance are consistent with Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5, its im- plementing administrative rules, and other pertinent provi- sions of the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Section 4. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this day of���� , 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF D,gSCHUTE-S COUNTY, -)OREGON S ,KIST)OK PRANTE, Commissioner ATT�V f VVWV OM T OP, o issioner Recording Secretary D K MAUDLIM,Cliiirman 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 88-040 EXHIBIT "A" 0095 C JS3 SURFACE MINING The mining of pumice, cinders, building stone, sand, gravel and crushed rock is an important local industry and a crucial resource for urban development. Not only does this mining provide employment, but it also furnishes products important to the economic development of Deschutes County. Although pumice and cinders have remained in good supply, it has been increasing- ly apparent that good quality aggregate is rapidly disappearing. This is a non-renewable resource that must be protected if the community is to be able to take advantage of the lower cost involved with using local materials. LOCATION All local governments recognize that sand and gravel is a valu- able resource on which their future development will depend. For some it is a limited resource and consequently it is in the public interest to protect it. In these situations, it is necessary to understand the geology of sand and gravel deposits to be able to make rational decisions. Most commercial deposits of sand and gravel are found in and around valleys, terraces and fans of existing and pre-existing rivers and streams; in coastal plains and lake deposits and in formations deposited by receding glaciers. Sand and gravel deposits produced by a stream or river that has, or has had, a large volume and a steep gradient are common in or near mountainous regions. Deposits are dropped in fan -shaped formations at the mouths of canyons. Such deposits left by floodwaters are called alluvial deposits. Sand and gravel deposited by ordinary river or stream action and not by flood- waters are called fluvial deposits. Sand and gravel also occur on old lake bottoms. These deposits usually are less desirable for commercial usage because they have a high proportion of fine sands but sparse gravel. A high quality source of sand and gravel are those deposits resulting from glaciation. Geologists use a variety of terms, such as eskers, kames and moraines to identify the different kinds of glacial formations in which the deposits occur. VALUE The commercial value of mineral and aggregate deposits depends upon more than just the size and cleanliness of the product. Value also depends upon its location in relationship to markets. Aggregate is a bulky commodity and as such needs a nearby market. 1 - SURFACE MINING 0095 0034 There are no general standards or criteria for defining a valu- able deposit. Instead, it is necessary to study the local sand and gravel industry to find out the characteristics that make deposits valuable in a particular locality. For the typical sand and gravel producer, the commercial poten- tial of a deposit depends on the following factors: 1. Thickness and variability of the overburden; 2. Thickness and extent of the deposit; 3. Physical properties of the deposit, including particle distribution, mineralogy, durability, etc.; 4. Accessibility of deposits to heavy-duty roads, railroads or navigable waterways; 5. Distance from point of use; 6. Availability of a sufficient water supply; 7. Depth to groundwater; and 8. Governmental restrictions placed on operations, such as locally restrictive zoning ordinances. Sand and gravel do not have to be used in exactly the same physical state in which they are found. It can be artificially upgraded by screening, washing and combining grade sizes, but unsatisfactory size gradation or ratios can require costly processing to meet market specification. Thus, geologically, the ideal sand and gravel deposit is one that consists of clean, hard particles that are present in quantity in a wide range of grade sizes. For aggregate, high quality deposits usually contain at least 25 percent gravel in a variety of particle sizes necessary for both coarse and fine aggregate. In general, the more gravel, the more valuable the deposit is to the producer. When there is a high sand ratio and a low amount of coarse and medium-sized gravel, the producer may be required to blend crushed stone with the naturally occurring material or may screen the material to meet market specification. Similarly, an excess of coarse material may require costly crushing operations. But, in all types of sites, there are lower quality deposits that are economically valuable for producing useful grades that meet specifications less restrictive than those for use in concrete. 2 - SURFACE MINING oogt DEMAND The major use of mineral aggregates is in concrete. The low cost, high bulk aggregates tend to keep concrete construction costs at levels competitive with other building materials. Other major uses of aggregates include highway and railroad base or ballast materials, graded fill and various industrial uses. Crushed and broken stone are used directly in construction as aggregate accounts for about half the value and 2/5ths of the quantity of natural aggregates consumed in the United States. Sand and gravel provide most of the balance of aggregates, except for some light weight materials such as pumice and expanded shale. Conditions necessary for production of crushed stone from a deposit are: 1. Quality - should pass rigid specification for strength and durability. 2. Cost - low average total delivered cost. Construction aggregates are hard, essentially inert materials suitable for being formed into a stable mass by either: 1. the addition of cementing or binding materials that produce a concrete, or 2. Compaction or by natural weight to produce a road base or foundation. Principal aggregate mineral categories are: 1. Crushed stone. 2. Sand and gravel. CONSUMPTION The uses of crushed stone are divided into two broad categories 1. Those uses in which the physical properties of the stone are more important, and 2. Those uses in which the chemical properties of the stone are utilized. Construction uses of crushed stone can be divided into four end- use categories: 1. Highway. 2. Residential. 3 - SURFACE MINING 3. Non-residential (commercial). 4. Government. Highways account nationally for about 2/3rds of total use, though the average for an individual producer may be different. For Deschutes County, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries identified that between 1970 and 1976, the average annual production of sand and gravel was 138,000 tons. For stone the average production was 547,000 tons. Thus, the Deschutes County in the period 1970 to 1976, average annual production of both commodities was 685,000 tons. A per capita consumption of around 15 tons per person is suggested for that time period. In trying to predict future demand, particularly in rural areas, it is necessary to consider three sources of information. Using historic data from mine sties regulated by the Department, a conservative figure can be developed. This figure is conserva- tive because it does not accommodate mine sites and production outside the regulatory scope of the program. It also is conser- vative because past production probably is not a realistic measure of future production given the urbanization and large- scale highway projects foreseen for the future. Using historic figure within the Mined Land Reclamation Program only, a figure of approximately 350,000 - 750,00 cubic yards per year of aggre- gate (1978 - 1987) is realistic. Two other measures are available to address or determine demand. First, population projections can be used in conjunction with per capita consumption figures to derive estimates of future demand. As noted earlier, the per capita consumption is about 15 tons per year. If t!.e population of Deschutes County is presently about 67,400, one can use the per capita figure of 15 tons per individ- ual to derive a total demand of approximately 1,011,000 tons per year. The other category of factors to be considered includes large- scale const^sc-ion projects such as expansion of Highway 97, strategic improvement of other roads within the County or long- range implications of enhanced gas tax revenues. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation, the counties of Deschutes , Klamath and Jefferson will se much more heavy construction as U. S. 97 is widened to our lands over the next 5 - 15 years. For estimating consumption, ODOT used factors including 18 -inch depth (base and surfacing), four lanes with 8 - foot shoulders and 10 to 16 -foot median or about 80 feet of width. This volume, times length of jobs, will provide reason- able aggregate consumption estimates. 4 - SURFACE MINING It= 1 The ODOT 1989 - 1994 Six -Year Highway Improvement Plan identifies 56.7 miles of construction projects within Deschutes County. This translates into a need for approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of aggregate for the U. S. 97 project. The Deschutes county Major Roads Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1988-89 to Fiscal Year 1993-94 identifies some 74.6 miles of County roads needing reconstruction and 19.2 miles of unpaved or new roads needing work. This translates into a need of approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of aggregate for these projects. In a report prepared by the Oregon State Department of Geology and Mineral Industry (Schlicker et. al. 1975), it has been sug- gested that the average housing unit requires approximately 40 cubic yards of concrete. The report estimates that each new home generates a sizable secondary market in the community for public services that amount to an aggregate demand equivalent to more than 100 cubic yards per house. The resources are required in the form of concrete aggregate, rock for foundation pads, embank- ments and select fill, etc. The rate of growth of a community has a large, direct effect on per capita consumption of rock products. Considering all of the above factors, a conservative projected demand of two million cubic yards of aggregate per year is an appropriate measure to use in the planning for future mineral and aggregate resource usage for Deschutes County. 5 - SURFACE MINING 9095 0038 SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES GOAL: To protect and utilize appropriately, within the framework established by Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rules, the mineral and aggregate resources of Deschutes County, while minimizing the adverse impacts of mineral and aggregate extraction and processing upon the resource impact area. POLICIES: General 1. These policies set forth the general guidelines under which the county will implement the Goal 5 process for mineral and aggregate resources. More specific poli- cies relating to utilization of mineral and aggregate resources under particular circumstances and at par- ticular sites may be adopted by and set forth in the county's zoning ordinance provisions. 2. For purposes of these policies, where applicable, the terms used shall have the same meaning as those terms in the administrative rules implementing Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 5. Surface Mining Identification and Designation 3. The county shall encourage resource conservation. 4. The county shall encourage the use of materials which can be substituted for sand and gravel. 5. Land use decisions of the county shall be based upon balanced consideration of the location and availability of mineral and aggregate resources, and conflicting resources and uses, as designated in the comprehensive plan. 6. The county shall review, as part of each periodic review process, the status of mineral and aggregate re- sources in the county. 7. Sufficient SM (Surface Mining) zoning shall be main- tained by the county to satisfy the needs of the county as reflected by the data contained in the comprehensive plan. 8. The county shall retain ownership of county -owned lands which are zoned SM pursuant to this plan and the Goal 5 process. The county may permit private operators to 1 - SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES mine county -owned resources. 9. A mineral and aggregate resource not on the current inventory shall be placed on the inventory and zoned SM when the following conditions are met: (a) A report is provided by a certified geolo- gist, engineer or other qualified person or firm verifying the location, type, quantity and quality of the resource; and (b) The Goal 5 conflict identification and resolution process results in a determination that the resource is important relative to conflicting resources and uses, if any. 10. The county shall identify and protect sites for the storage, extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate resources within the framework of Goal 5 and its implementing administrative rules. 11. If the Goal 5 process does not identify resources or uses which conflict with inventoried mineral and aggregate resource sites, such resource sites, whether or not they are actively being utilized at the time of plan amendment, shall be zoned SM. 12. If conflicting resources or uses are identified through the Goal 5 process, a mineral and ag- gregate resource shall be zoned SM if it is deter- mined to be of such importance relative to con- flicting resources or uses as to require protec- tion. Uses which would interfere with the present or future use of the SM site shall not be allowed, or shall be limited, until the mineral and ag- gregate resource has been depleted. 13. SM zoning shall be prohibited in critical and sensi- tive resource areas (such as fish and wildlife habi- tats, wetlands and riparian areas, recreation and open space areas, and archaeological and historic sites) when such areas and resources have been evaluated in light of all current comprehensive plan goals and policies, and are determined through the Goal 5 process to be of such importance relative to inventoried mineral and aggregate resources as to require complete protection. 14. Although extraction of mineral and aggregate resources is considered by this plan to be a transitional land use, interim uses (prior to extraction) and secondary uses (after depletion) compatible with the development 2 - SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES of lands in the impact area shall be designated as allowed uses on SM sites. Such interim and secondary land uses shall be identified prior to extraction so uses inconsistent with the plan are avoided. Surface Mining Operations: 15. Uses permitted outright or conditionally in the SM zone shall include: (a) Extraction, processing and storage of mineral and aggregate resources; and (b) Necessary ancillary activities related to the uses listed in paragraph (a) above. 16. If timber or other similar renewable resources are identified in the Goal 5 process as existing on an SM site, such other resources shall be utilized first, before use of the mineral and aggregate resources. 17. Extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate resources shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable county, state and federal standards. 18. Increased setbacks, insulation, screening and other similar conditions, where appropriate, shall be re- quired for approval of any new residential, recrea- tional or other conflicting development or uses on lands in the impact area of SM sites. 19. The county may establish additional standards and procedures to minimize visual impact, noise, air and water pollution, natural and operating hazards, and other environmental impacts of the extraction and processing on the impact area. The county shall adopt and apply more stringent operating standards where lands in the impact area are zoned forest, agricul- tural, residential, landscape management, wildlife or other similar overlay zones, or where such impact area has particularly sensitive resources or uses, such as wildlife nesting or spawning sites or intensive recrea- tional uses. 20. Mineral and aggregate resource sites zoned SM shall not be operated for extraction or processing unless a site plan and reclamation plan, including mitigation and rehabilitation schedules, where appropriate, have been approved in writing by the county and the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), respectively. Site plans shall be developed with citizen participa- tion. Site plans shall, at a minimum, comply with all 3 - SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES AVON 0041 DOGAMI reclamation plan requirements, and may include additional requirements. 21. Identified conflicts between mineral and aggregate resources, and resources and uses in the impact area, shall be minimized under the Goal 5 conflict resolution process, and by utilizing methods including, but not limited to: (a) Requiring that the operator comply with all applicable requirements of county, state and federal agencies; (b) Planning the development of lands in the impact area so as to minimize disruptions in the beneficial use of each. (c) Imposing appropriate conditions on permits. (d) Timely utilization of the resource. 22. Extraction of mineral and aggregate resources for non- commercial uses shall conform to the same environmental and regulatory standards as are applicable to commer- cial operators, when necessary to protect the impact area of the resource site. On lands not zoned SM, such extraction may be allowed as a conditional use. 23. The county shall have the authority to enforce condi- tions of approval, and provisions of the county zoning ordinances, and, to the extent otherwise provided by law, regulations of other governmental agencies, relating to the extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate resources, to prevent violations thereof. 4 - SURFACE MINING GOALS AND POLICIES c CN II j Legal Counsel Administration Bldg. / Bend, Oregon 97701 / (5031388-6623 ��---� Richard L. Isham, County Legal Counsel Karen H. Green, Assistant Legal Counsel November 30, 1988 Bonnie Cargill, Legal Assistant MEMORANDUM: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY OMMISSIONERS FROM: KAREN H. GREEN Assistant Lega Counsel SUBJECT: Surface Mining Goals and Policies FILE NO. 1-534 COPY TO: Craig Smith, Planning Director Chuck McGraw, Associate Planner On December 14, 1988, the Board will conduct a final public hearing on adoption of the proposed surface mining goals and policies. As you recall, proposed goals and policies were developed by staff and the Planning Commission after public hearings and considerable public comment. The goals and policies submitted to the Board prior to its November 9th public hearing incorporated many of the modifications suggested by participants in the public hearings. During and after the November 9th public hearing, several parties submitted comments on the revised goals and policies. In addi- tion, Craig, Chuck and I met with Doug White of DLCD and dis- cussed the revised goals and policies and his written comments. After reviewing the comments submitted concerning the revised goals and policies, I have made several minor revisions. A copy of the revised goals and policies is attached to this memo. (Also attached is an introductory discussion of surface mining to precede the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan.) The purpose of this memo is to identify the revisions, to sum- marize the comments, and to explain whether and how those com- ments have been addressed in the revisions, and the rationale. A. Revisions to Goals and Policies The revised goals and policies, and the purposes for the revi- sions, are as follows: 0695 0043 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Two November 30, 1988 1. A new Policy 1 has been added, stating the purpose of these general policies and that more specific policies may be adopted in the zoning ordinances. (All policies consequently have been renumbered.) This new policy has been added to clarify that these policies are general guidelines which logically should be adopted prior to the Goal 5 "ESEE" analysis. 2. Policy 9(b) has been revised to remove the word "more." This revision has been made to clarify that, under the Goal 5 administrative rules, the county can zone a site SM if the mineral and aggregate resource is determined to be important enough to merit complete or partial protection. In other words, to protect the resource by zoning it SM, the resource need not be more important than conflicting resources and uses -- it need only be "important" relative to them. 3. Policy 11 has been revised to remove the word "com- plete" from the first sentence, and to add the phrase "or shall be limited" in the second sentence. The purpose for these revisions is similar to that for the revision in paragraph 9(b) above. The revisions clarify that, under the administrative rules, a site may be zoned SM if it is determined to require protec- tion -- whether complete or partial -- and that con- flicting uses may be prohibited or limited to protect the resource. 4. Policy 15 has been revised to remove the word "primary" and to add the words "and conditionally." The purpose of these revisions is to clarify that, under the administrative rules, the county may allow certain uses connected with surface mining, such as processing, conditionally rather than outright, if conditions are deemed necessary as a result of the ESEE analysis concerning a particular resource site. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Three November 30, 1988 5. Policy 17 has been revised to add the word "county." The purpose of this revision is to clarify that surface mining operations must comply with county regulations as well as those of state and federal agencies. 6. Policy 21 has been revised to add the phrase: "under the Goal 5 conflict -resolution process, and by utilizing methods including, but not limited to." The purpose of this revision is to clarify that con- flicts must be resolved by the process set forth in the Goal 5 administrative rules, and that the "minimizing" factors identified in the policy are examples. 7. Policy 21(a) has been revised to add the word "county." The purpose for this revision is the same as that discussed in item #5, above. 8. Policy 23 has been revised to add the words "and" and "to enforce." The purpose for these revisions is to clarify that the first phrase of the policy refers to county enforcement of county regulations, and the second phrase refers to county enforcement of other entities' regulations, where such enforcement is authorized by law. B. Summary of Comments on Goals and Policies The comments received concerning the revised goals and policies are summarized as follows: 1. Doug White (DECD) - November 7th letter Doug White stated that the goals and policies were acceptable to DLCD, with the exception of the issue of conflict resolution between mineral and aggregate resources and existing conflicting uses (e.g., houses). 4095 0045 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Four November 30, 1988 Doug White's concerns will be specifically addressed in the development of the ESEE "model" or 'matrix" by which the county will determine how to weigh various conflicting uses and resources against mineral and aggregate resources. However, the revision to Policy 21, discussed above, also addresses his concerns. 2. Frank Parisi (R.L. Coats) - November 7th letter Frank Parisi raised five major objections: policies should restate the Goal 5 administrative rules verbatim, and not paraphrase them; Not adopted because the goals and policies are in- tended to explain how the administrative rules will be applied in the county, not merely to restate the rules. policies should not allow any limitation of impacts of mineral and aggregate extraction; Not adopted because not consistent with Goal 5 ad- ministrative rules, which do allow such limitation. Policy 7 should not state that "need" for the resource is limited to Deschutes County; Not adopted because, historically, the county has limited its "need' analysis of "consumable" Goal 5 resources -- e.g., energy -- to the local area. Policy 12 should reflect that conflicting uses may be allowed fully or may be limited under the ESEE analysis; Addressed in revisions to Policy 12. Policy 22 should clarify that processing opera- tions such as asphalt batch plants should be an out- right permitted use on all SM sites. Not adopted because, in my opinion, county has author- ity -- and in some cases may be required -- to condi- tion siting of some batch plants. Addressed in revi- sions to Policy 15. 0095 0046 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Five November 30, 1988 3. Ed Sullivan (Rose Site Opponents) - November 8th letter Ed Sullivan raised three major objections: The goals and policies should give "equal weight" to the value of mineral/aggregate resources and ad- jacent housing. Not adopted because, in my opinion, not consistent with Goal 5 administrative rules, which to give greater protection to Goal 5 resources. Policy 15 should impose limitations on the siting of batch plants, or require a hearing before such siting decisions are made. Addressed in the revisions to Policy 15. Policies 17 and 21 should include references to county regulation enforcement. Addressed in revisions to Policies 17 and 21. 4. Steve Janik (Bend Aggregate and Paving) - November 9th letter Steve Janik raised two major objections: Policies should allow "maximum utilization" of mineral and aggregate resources, and should not provide for any restrictions on such utilization. Not adopted because, in my opinion, not consistent with Goal 5 administrative rules, which expressly provide for some limitations on Goal 5 resources when deter- mined necessary as a result of ESEE analysis of con- flicting uses. Policy 9 is inconsistent with county's practice in developing surface mining inventory because it provides that a new resource site may not be included on the inventory or zoned SM without report from a certified geologist. 0095 004'7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Six November 30, 1988 No change necessary to Policy 9. The policy provides that requisite information on site's location, quality and quantity must come from a geologist, engineer or other Qualified Person. In my opinion, the phrase "other qualified person" can include the resource site owner, if the owner is able to supply such inventory information. 5. Richard Angstrom (OCAPA) - November 9th letter Richard Angstrom concurred with the objections presen- ted by Frank Parisi on behalf of R.L. Coats, which are addressed above. In addition, Angstrom objected to all policies which state or imply that the county may establish regulations on surface mining activity, citing state law which conditionally preempts local regulation. As Angstrom noted, the state statutes purporting to preempt local regulation of surface mining provide that counties may enforce land use regulation of mining activity if their land use ordinances are approved by DOGAMI. It is our intention to submit to and obtain approval from DOGAMI of our adopted surface mining goals, policies and ordinance provisions. 6. William Kinsey - November 25th letter Mr. Kinsey raised two major objections: The county should not adopt any goals and policies specifying how the Goal 5 administrative rules will be applied, but rather should simply state that Goal 5 will be followed. As discussed above, purpose of goals and policies is to describe, in part, the county's Goal 5 process. Not only is the adoption of such policies logical, but in my opinion, it is required by DLCD to demonstrate the county's compliance with the Goal 5 and the administra- tive rules. The county should not adopt any goals and policies until the ESEE analysis of each site is completed. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Seven November 30, 1988 As we have discussed before, and the new Policy 1, these goals an guidelines which logically should ESEE process is begun. 0095 0048 as is now addressed in d policies are general be adopted before the 7. Norm Behrens/Ted Fies (ODFW) - Novembr 29th letter Fish and Wildlife raised three objections: The county should maintain the SMR zoning designa- tion to allow for future changes in circumstances (such as changes in deer migration routes) which may warrant the prohibition of surface mining on such sites. Not adopted because the SMR designation creates un- necessary uncertainty, and because the Goal 5 process contemplates that the ESEE analysis will identify and resolve future conflicts as to each resource site. Fish and Wildlife always has the option of requesting that the county initiate a legislative zone change proceeding on a designated SM site if circumstances have changed which may warrant a rezoning. The policies should not state that SM zoning will be prohibited in critical and sensitive habitats until all such areas have been identified. Not adopted because identification of such habitats will be undertaken in the ESEE and conflict resolution process, and the policy simply states the county's approach once those areas have been identified.. The policies should prohibit SM zoning within the floodplain or high water mark of all rivers and streams in the county. Not adopted because any prohibition on the utilization of a Goal 5 resource must be determined throught the ESEE analysis and conflict resolution process. Based upon consideration of the Goal 5 administrative rules, and the comments and objections raised by the participants in the public hearings on the goals and policies, I recommend that the Board adopt the attached introductory statement and revised goals and policies. If you have any questions about the goals and policies or the comments on them, please let me know. �e=L� December 12, 1988 MEMORANDUM: EXHIBIT "C" 0095 a^49 Legal CounseTI Administration Bldg. / Bend, Oregon 97701 / (503) 388-6623 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY C�OM�MI)SSIONERS FROM: KAREN H. GREEN�"�`^� Assistant Legal Counsel SUBJECT: Surface Mining Goals and Policies FILE NO. 1-534 Richard L. Isham, County Legal Counsel Karen H. Green, Assistant Legal Counsel Bonnie Cargill, Legal Assistant COPY TO: Craig Smith, Planning Director Chuck McGraw, Associate Planner Last week, the Planning Department finally received written • comments from DOGAMI on the surface mining goals and policies. DOGAMI raised three concerns, two of which I believe already are adequately addressed in the policies. However, the third concern requires an additional modification to the policies. DOGAMI stated that Policy # 20 implies that the county will assume responsibility for approving mining "reclamation plans," as that term is used in the mining statutes. The policy was intended to state that DOGAMI-approved reclamation plans were required, as well as a county -approved land use site plan which also would cover reclamation issues. Accordingly, Policy # 20 has been modified to clarify that the county will approve site plans, but not reclamation plans which must be approved by DOGAMI. With this final modification, I would recommend that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 88-040, which amends the comprehensive plan to adopt the attached surface mining goals and policies. KHG LJ