STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ROUTT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK May 20, 2005

EN RE: LAFARGE WEST, INC. TRANSCRIPT

Commissioners Daniel R. Ellison and Douglas B. Monger; County Manager Tom Sullivan; County Attorney John Merrill; Caryn Fox, and John Eastman, County Planning; Mike Zopf, Environmental Health; Luke Sobeski, Gary Tuttle, Paul Brown, Dave Bailey, and Rod Harris, Lafarge; Deb and John Holloway, Dori Weiss Allen, Ken Solomon, Karen Hughes, Jamie Hall, Diane Wallace, Diane Wallace, Phillipa Oliver, Pat Evengelatos, Rosemary Post, Valerie Perea, Thom Faiola, David Josfan, Lynn Abbott, Gonk Jacobs, Jamie Jacobs, Eloise More, E. G. Hibbert, Jayne Hill, Carol Iverson, David and Tresa Moulton, Ren Martyn, David Strode, Naomi Hopkins, William Sampan, Jace and Kim Romick, Jamie and Jack Romick, Rod Wyatt, Loris and Deb Werner, Pat Cox, Diane and Joel Anderson, and Kevin and Jane Bennett, citizens; Mike Jones, King Mt. Gravel; and Christine Metz, Steamboat Today, were present. Commissioner Nancy J. Stahoviak was present via telephone. Diana Bolton recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.

Ellison: This is a continuation follow-up hearing to the hearing—part of the hearing—held Monday night. Commissioner Stahoviak is again participating by ‘phone. Where we were when we left was that the Board was discussing and deliberating the final decision on the Lafarge request. The Board will continue to deliberate that application, and at this time we don’t intend to open the meeting further to public comment. The Board, however, may have questions of the staff or the petitioner that we want to ask and will ask of them.

Monger: I don’t have any questions at this point in time. I think we’ll open it up for public [sic] comment. Who wants to go? Nancy, did you want to lead off? Dan…

Stahoviak: Yes; I do have one question.

Monger: Okay. Please, go.

Stahoviak: At the end of the hearing on Monday night, there was one issue that was kind of left hanging, and that was the issue regarding whether or not Lafarge had met the requirement of Condition Number 5, the Army Corps of Engineers’ permit. I had asked John Eastman to please try to contact the Army Corps of Engineers so that we could get that situation rectified one way or another. So John, were you able to talk to Tony Curtis or someone else at the Corps?

Eastman: Yes, Nancy, I was. I spoke with Nathan Green, who’s in their Grand Junction office, and Tony Curtis. Nathan had said that an e-mail with an attachment was sent to him within the deadline. He then forwarded that to Tony, because he was working on that case. In discussing it with Tony, he said that he did receive the e-mail, and he has a record of that. Page 04-1 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing The attachment did not come through. He thought that was probably due to some sort of security restriction on large attachments through their e-mail system. So he feels that they are in compliance at this time with that Condition.

Stahoviak: So the Condition--or their plan--has not actually been reviewed and approved by the Corps yet?

Eastman: Didn’t have that discussion with them. I just asked them specifically if they were in compliance with that Condition, and Tony said, yes.

Stahoviak: Okay. Thank you.

Ellison: Okay.

Stahoviak: John I’ll put in – (inaudible) if you want me to.

Monger: That would be great.

Stahoviak: I think probably for the last couple of weeks, all three Commissioners have reviewed all of the information related to this Special Use Permit that we received since the first conceptual hearing in 2001. There were some concerns raised at the initial meeting regarding that Special Use Permit, and they were concerns that each Commissioner had about how impacts regarding the Special Use Permit would be addressed by Lafarge. There were a couple of things that I was hoping would happen that haven’t happened, and that disappoints me. One of them was the whole issue surrounding the batch plants, both the asphalt and concrete batch plants. We’ve had a lot of discussion about those being industrial uses, and that we need to identify an area where industrial uses such as those can occur. And at the time, I indicated that through the update of the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan, I was certainly hoping that we would be able to identify industrial areas within the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan boundaries where those industrial-type uses could occur. Unfortunately, nothing’s happened. As far as that update, there was no expansion of where industrial uses could occur; there was no definitive clarification about where batch plants could go within the Area Plan boundaries. At the same time, we had also had the staff talk to City staff about whether or not a batch plant would be allowed in the industrial areas the City currently has. The comments back from City staff were that they could be a use that would be allowed, but they would have to be able to meet all the criteria. Unfortunately, nothing ever happened with Lafarge trying to take an industrial use like a batch plant through the City – (one word; Tape 1/149) process identifying a piece of property and trying to determine whether or not that batch plant could be located in that area. One of the other discussions that occurred a lot was that in the original Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan, this area was identified as a key open space parcel, according to one of the--what we called ‘preferred’ land use maps at the time, and that was one of the reasons that was given to us at that time for considering a Special Use Permit on this parcel. We did have some information in the original Fact Packet, dated April 3, 2003, that talked about that. And what it said was, “The proposed site is outside the designated roadway protection areas. A portion of the proposed site is designated as a key open space parcel. There are no Page 04-2 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing specific policies related to the preferred direction map. However, on Page 7-2 in the Open Lands, Recreation, and Trails section, the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan notes that, ‘Protection of open lands is founded on several principles, including providing compensation to landowners for the removal of development rights.’” What has not occurred in the ten years since the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan has been in existence is that the community has not been able to work with the Mores to preserve that open space parcel. I believe the community has a huge responsibility to determine whether or not those types of provisions in the Plan, or desired outcomes in that Plan, happen. And it didn’t happen. We didn’t have a willing landowner who was willing to work with the community; we didn’t have a community that could raise probably the kind of funds that that would happen. So that whole issue is kind of an issue that is no longer valid at this point in time. In reviewing all of the letters that we’ve received since December, 2004, or Fall of 2004, there was one letter that had some references in it that really concerned me. The letter stated that the word on the street is that the County Commissioners made a deal with Lafarge in denying the Warner Pit we would allow them to develop their operations on the More Pit. That personally insults me as a Commissioner to have an irresponsible statement like that circulating in our community. I’ve served this County as a Commissioner for twelve years. I’ve done it with honesty and integrity. And I have never, never made a decision based on making a deal with anyone. And for anyone to resort to making those types of irresponsible statements and publishing inaccurate information, just to get support for their cause, is not very ethical in my thinking, and I think we should try to stay away from those types of things. There has never been any conversation with me or the other Commissioners and Lafarge about anything of the sort. The reason the Warner Pit was denied was because of the substantial impacts that could not be mitigated: It was too close to the highway; it was too close to the entryway to Steamboat Springs, and those visual impacts could not be mitigated. There were also some safety impacts because of the closeness to the curve in the highway that was. So the reason that permit was denied was because it was not the right place for a permit. Now we’re dealing with trying to figure out whether this is the place for a permit, and whether everything can be mitigated according to the land use regulations that we have in place. Another thing that really concerns me when we got the updated list of conditions from Planning staff that had some technical changes from the Planning Commission’s conditions that were passed in 2003 was that Lafarge wanted a variety of changes to those conditions. And, at this point in the game when we are really trying to find a win-win solution for the community, it concerns me that both sides of this petition are still trying to pull at each other, and still trying to more of one thing or another as opposed to trying to work together and solve these issues. I can tell you right now if we move toward any type of approval, I’m not going to be very favorable towards any of those changes that Lafarge is requesting. What I really do appreciate about the process that we’ve gone through are the comments that we’ve received from some citizens that are very specific about issues and concerns and especially as they relate to our Master Plan and our zoning and subdivision regulations. An example of that was on Monday night, when Marian Marti asked some questions about the Planning Commission conditions and they were things like the weeds—noxious weed plan had to be approved by the weed management director prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, and she could not understand why we are even thinking about this if that condition hasn’t been met. So I wanted to just take a minute to explain to you how the Special Use Permit Page 04-3 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing process works. If the Board of County Commissioners approves a Special Use Permit with conditions, then it is up to the petitioner to comply with any conditions that say, ‘prior to the issuance of the permit’ before the permit is actually prepared by the Planning Department and signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. So in the condition like the condition of the noxious management plan, if this permit is approved, before the permit is issued and signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Lafarge will have to show our Planning Commission that they have a noxious weed management plan that has been approved by our Noxious Weed Management Director. Any conditions that say that, ‘prior to the issuance of the permit’, all of those conditions have to be met before their permit is issued and they start any type of operations. I believe that the Commissioners have very clearly stated, since the very first hearing that we had in 2001, that we feel there is a continued need for a gravel mining operation in the South Valley. One of the things that our staff has provided to us also as part of their staff Planning packet was a little bit of a narrative regarding--that would try to in the exploration of the extraction of minerals out of a resource area before any other development. And what they said about the More Ranch was, “The 670-acre More Ranch property is the largest private parcel remaining in the South Valley area. Due to the proliferation of 35-acre parcels in the South Valley, it is one of few parcels large enough to accommodate a long-term mining operation. There are only two other private parcels over 250 acres in size in the South Valley area. They are owned by Randy Rowe, formerly owned by Hudsputh, and Catamount Development, neither of whom has expressed interest in developing gravel resources on their property.” What we have here is an area that needs some type of a gravel mining operation, and a difficult time finding where that gravel mining operation can occur. The reason it’s important to try to locate a gravel mining operation in the South Valley—and, when I say South Valley, I mean the valley directly south of Steamboat Springs, not the South Routt area—that’s not the South Valley of Steamboat Springs. But, one of the other things our Master Plan and our regulations talk about is the to limit haul distances by locating that aggregate resource closest to where they are used. And right now, the majority of aggregate resources are being used in the Steamboat Springs area. So it’s important to try to locate those resources in the Steamboat Springs area. There’s also been talk about the MacArthur pit and that we don’t need to even consider this nbecause there’s the MacArthur pit, which is supposed to now provide for that South Valley area. A couple of things: that has not been approved by the City. There was a conceptual discussion with the Planning Commission the proposal hasn’t even conceptually come before the City Council. It is my understanding that the annual tonnage that will come out of that operation will be between 100 and 150,000 tons. That’s a lot less than is needed in this area. And as one of the ways that we look at what the need is and where the need is is try to figure out what the need is in that area. And another thing that is talked about in the Staff Report is what area this site could actually provide gravel for, in addition to the Steamboat Springs metropolitan area. And what Planning staff said was, “The proposed site could provide approximate source of gravel, concrete, and asphalt to a significant residential, commercial and public projects anticipated in the South Valley and south Steamboat Springs area over the next fifteen years. Approximately 50% of the existing platted lots in the South Valley area are still vacant. The majority of the lots in Agate Creek, Storm Mountain Ranch, Sidney Peak, Catamount, and Creek Ranch subdivisions have not yet been built. In addition, major reconstruction and widening of both Highway 131 and County Road 14 is scheduled for the Page 04-4 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing next fourteen years--the next several years.” So there is definitely a need for a gravel mining operation in this area; I think that has been established. When we look at a Special Use Permit, one of the other comments that was received from some people was that a gravel mining operation should not be allowed in an agricultural area. Well, the fact of the matter is, according to our regulations now, a gravel mining operation is allowed in an agricultural area under a Special Use Permit, if any and all impacts can be adequately mitigated for that operation. So our job as Commissioners is to determine whether or not the gravel mining operation would substantially and adequately mitigate all impacts. That’s what we’re going to be talking about tonight. One of the arguments that has come through very strongly against this particular petition is that no new long-term mining operation should be visible along the entryways, growth centers, or potential growth centers as identified in the Routt County Master Plan. The Staff comment related, “That particular Master Plan issue is, the proposed site is located outside the roadway corridor protection areas identified by the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan.” So, according to staff, the area we’re talking about is outside the entryway or the roadway corridor. Another comment that I had made back in 2001 was, since we were going to be updating the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan, it would sure be nice if we could get some clarification about those corridor areas: where they were and exactly what citizens wanted to see in those areas. That did not occur also as part of that Plan update, and I’m disappointed that it did not. As far as the visual impacts of this operation, I believe that the visual impacts can be mitigated. I think in our Planning Commission’s hearings in 2003, several Planning Commissioners made comments about the different sites and views that they tried to see the pit from and what they could see visibly. The Commissioners went on several site visits several years ago and looked from Highway 131, Highway 40 to see what the visual impacts were. And because of the location of this pit and some of the landscaping and berming techniques that are proposed to be used, I believe that the visual impacts can be mitigated enough to allow the pit to occur according to the visual impact concern. That doesn’t mean that I don’t continue to have some major concerns about this operation and whether or not some of them can be mitigated. I have, from the very beginning, stated that I had concerns about the batch plants; I had concerns about the Phase III mining operation and its impacts on adjacent property owners; I have had significant concerns about the traffic safety because of the fog; I’v had concerns about whether or not there is a public benefit being provided for this petition; and we all had concerns about everything that has to do with wetlands, floodplains, and groundwater. I believe that through the Army Corps of Engineers’ permit, which is in our petition, that the Army Corps of Engineers’ permit is issued, that it would be able to address all of those water issues relating to wetlands and groundwater, well monitoring, and everything. When I read the conditions in the Army Corps of Engineers permit, it appears to me that now that condition is being met. The petitioner will have to carefully monitor and provide reports, and, if there are any problems, they will have to mitigate what is happening. So I believe that will happen, and I think someone made the statement at our last hearing that, Well, if you’re putting in all these conditions about mitigation, that must mean that you know something’s going to happen. That’s not necessarily true: what that means is that someone has raised a concern; that we don’t know what the outcome’s going to be—I think we’ve heard so many arguments on both sides, from so many experts, we know that nobody can tell us exactly what’s going to happen. If we put in a system to monitor and then to mitigate, we can take care of those concerns. The bottom Page 04-5 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing line is, if we can’t, the pit gets shut down and the permit gets pulled. I believe the floodplain issues are being addressed through the amendment to the floodplain map. What we have regarding that is—what we say in our regulations is, batch plants shall not be located in the one-hundred-year floodplain unless all the requirements in the National Flood Insurance Program can be complied with. The letter that we received from FEMA prior to our last hearing indicates to me that they are going to be complying with everything that has to do with the National Flood Insurance Program. They will also need to get a floodplain development permit from the County prior to issuance of their permit. So what that leaves me with is my concerns about the batch plant, Phase III, the traffic safety because of the fog, and the public benefit. My feeling about the batch plant is, we do not need it on the South Valley floor. I believe that we have had numerous discussions about the batch plant being industrial in nature, and that they need to be separated from gravel mining operations. Also, I believe that needs to happen is, I don’t care how many times a gravel pit operator tells you that they have all of the materials there they need to produce something out of that batch plant, they are going to need to import additional materials, and I am not in favor of that. Therefore, the only way that I would support this permit going forward is if the concrete batch plant did not occur. I’m only in favor of approving a gravel mining operation with a crusher, and not the concrete batch plant. I would also want to get rid of the condition that talks about the importation of gravel materials and say that no importation of gravel materials would be allowed. Regarding Phase III, that’s the phase that would be closest to the property owners just to the east of the gravel mining operation. I could support a permit for this operation if Phase III was eliminated. I think that’s coming in – (inaudible word(s)) close to those property lines; I don’t think Lafarge did anything to work with those property owners and their major concerns, and I would want to eliminate Phase III. The traffic safety and the fog: I have absolutely no confidence that the fog mitigation plan that’s being proposed by Lafarge will work. I have driven from South Routt to Steamboat Springs for the last twenty-nine years, and when that fog comes into the valley, it moves around; you never know where it’s going to be there in the early morning hours during that Fall and Winter period, and so it will be there, and you don’t know when. I have grave concern about an instrument that’s going to determine whether we leave the pit open and when we close it, and how the truckers are going to figure that out. So the only way I would be willing to go forward with an approval for this pit—and the only way that I think we can adequately mitigate that concern is from August 15th to May 31st of every year, there can be no hauling from that pit, or no trucks coming into or out of that permit for hauling purposes until 10:00 a.m. So the hours of operation for that period would have to be from 10:00 a.m. to around 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 10:00 a.m. on Saturday. The public benefit issue: you know, we have some wording in our regulations that talk about providing public benefit by limiting the number of residential units to less than what is allowed for one per 35, or having some type of public assess or park, which some gravel mining operations have done. Nothing has happened in that area, and Lafarge is saying that it’s because of this court situation that they were in, they have to provide an option to the previous person that tried to establish a gravel pit on this property to purchase that property at the end of their mining operation. My question, probably for our Attorney, and if we move ahead with this, we can further discuss this is, does that prohibit the County from putting in a condition that would require a conservation easement on that 120 acres that would limit Page 04-6 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing development or something to that matter that would allow us to put some public benefit back into that property. I think that’s something we need to continue to talk about. I also have some other things that weren’t related to significant concerns that I had. This is some concerns that were raised as part of public comment or related to diesel fuel spill reporting, whether or not inspections need to occur on more of an on-going basis than we have in our conditions of approval right now, whether or not we should be limiting the annual tonnage—I’m in favor of doing that—I think we need to look at that. And also with the elimination of the batch plant, and to be in conformance with all of the other gravel pits in the County we’ve approved, I would want to limit the disturbed acreage at any one time to twenty-five acres. What that does also, with the whole issue of visual impacts, is that no more than one-fifth of that entire mining area that we’re looking at would be disturbed at any one time. And one thing that confused me a lot through this whole process when people were complaining and concerned about the visual impacts of this gravel mining operation on the community and how we’re going to ruin our prosperity and our tourism and everything is that if you come over Rabbit Ears Pass and come down in the Valley, the South Pit is completely visible from Rabbit Ears Pass. That South Pit has been there for twenty years. I even asked at the first hearing that we had whether or not any of surveys that were done with businesses or visitors to the community had indicated that the location of visual impacts of that South Pit had caused them concern and had caused them to think twice about coming here. There were never any such comments. Over the last twenty years, this area has continued to prosper and grow, even though there’s been that visual impact in the South Valley, which is much, much more substantial than any visual impact going to be for this mining operation. With that, I think that’s all I have to say at this point in time. So, my bottom line is, I still believe we need a gravel mining operation in the South Valley floor; I believe with substantial conditions to mitigate that this can be the appropriate place for a gravel mining operation, but not an industrial operation that has a batch plant attached to it; and that I would want some substantial changes to the conditions to address the safety issue related to the fog, and to talk more about the public benefit. Monger: I guess I’d like to go next and start off by thanking the public in regard to the process, and I believe that… Stahoviak: Dan? Ellison: Yes? Who’s speaking? Monger: Sorry; I didn’t have my mike on. Start off here again. I’d like to start off by thanking the public for their participation and valued participation in this arduous process, valued public process to come up with hopefully something that we can feel good to move forward on or not move forward on at this point in time, and I especially appreciate the civility that’s been demonstrated on this whole thing. You know, this has definitely been the worst part of my job. Planning in general, and this has been the most brutal application that I’ve had to participate in in my time since 2001. Gravel pits tear up the community; they tear up the Commissioners; they physically pit neighbors against neighbors; and they are very destructive to the good will of the community. At the same point and time they’re a very necessary evil of our community, and they’re a necessary evil for the economy, the new homes, existing homes, continuing economic development in the City, including the Urban Renewal Authority and the base area removed, the tennis meadows, as well as the, you know, overall prosperity of the City of Steamboat as well as Routt County itself. Our job is really to get the facts, digest the facts, prioritize the decision based on those facts and in relationship to the regulations that are in place, and the regulations being directed to us by Page 04-7 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing the Master Plan and all of the plans that are being adopted. We don’t have an opportunity to not approve because we don’t like gravel pits or we don’t like growth. We have to follow the regulations, and as well as you know, no matter which side of this ballgame you’re sitting on, we have to be able to uphold in court the decision that we move forward with, whether it’s denial or approval with mitigations and conditions. We have some opportunity to be somewhat subjective in our interpretation of the Plans and our analysis of how those plans are to be put forth, and our decision is only as good as the court decision that might need to be had to uphold that. I’ve had to base my decision on my interpretation of the plans and the regulations. I don’t like pits any more than the next person; I realize they’re a necessary evil, and I don’t really appreciate all the growth that we’ve had in our community. I realize that it’s been valuable to some, and it’s been a detriment to a lot of others. As a fourth generation Routt County native, I’ve shared in a lot of that growth, and when my family came here in 1895, and then when I had to see the gravel pit proposal for Connell-Thompson pit on top of my great- granddad’s homestead, it was not a fun--not a pleasant time. I appreciate the agriculture values of our land, and I appreciate the environmental aspects of our land, and I definitely share the view of Rabbit Ears Pass, and appreciate the protection of that view. I can really remember when I came down off Rabbit Ears Pass in my youth and not seeing any lights in the Valley floor, and now to come down off Rabbit Ears Pass and to be flooded by yard lights out there, and then to see it on into town, to see the base area of the town and Whistler Meadows, that’s something that I’ve had to live with, too. I get extremely disgruntled when I listen to people tell me, well they just bought their house nine months ago and we thought we sure were going to be protected by the commissioners. We’re doing the best job we can, and basically we have prosperity to deal with, and we’re not going to be shutting down growth; we’re not going to—anyhow, I’m going to get off that bandwagon. In general a few things that we believe that are reflected in the regulations regarding gravel pits. I think Nancy touched on a few of them. I’m definitely in support of area pits, and we do not have, and will not have, a County-wide pit as our friends in Summit County. And we are not going to have a concentration of pits that would be located in the West of Steamboat area and the Hayden area because we are subservient individuals over there that that’s all right for that to happen. We need to have pits scattered around the Valley floor, and this South Valley floor has always been a place that has needed a pit. I concur with Nancy’s—I mean, this was not an election issue; we’ve always had South Valley on the floor, and based on the discussion that Nancy just had, I’ve had numerous calls about, ‘well, just give us some time; we’ll find another place; we’ll find another place.’ We’ve been dragging this thing out now, again, basically since 2000. We need to move on. We need to support the South Pit, and we need to support an area pit. We also need to preserve our health, safety, and welfare, and that includes the air quality, water quality. We have transportation concerns, wildlife concerns, environmental concerns. We went through the King Mountain Gravel pit hearing—‘course we heard the comment from their consultant that, boy, in all of the rest of the counties, they allow us to do all these things, and whatever. And I said, Well, welcome to Routt County. Routt County has probably the most in-depth, non-controversial, is the most clear extraction industry zoning regulations that are probably available in any county in Colorado. We all can share in the societal impacts created by our own needs, and that does not to be borne by any one area, and that’s why I believe that we can continue to move forward on the South Valley pit. Page 04-8 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Issues should be mitigated, and that should be mitigated at appropriate levels, and the appropriate levels are the appropriate levels that we need to define going on. In the zoning statement, the basic premise of our zoning in the minerals extraction: “It is the intent of Routt County to ensure that the sand, soil, and gravel are available to the public and that the mining and related uses for sand, soil, and gravel occur without compromising the goals and objectives of the Routt County Master Plan or the regulations set forth in the Routt County Zoning Resolution. It is the intent of Routt County to assure that the local land use, Planning, and zoning requirements are addressed without duplication of, or contradiction with, pertinent Sate or federal requirements for such mining.” Again, what that’s saying is that we need to have…it isn’t the City’s responsibility or even the municipalities’ responsibility solely to provide aggregate; it’s the County’s responsibility. And I further believe we need to equitably share in that portion of that. Further, mitigation--Routt County does not intend to duplicate or conflict with federal or State requirements where mitigation plans do not appear to address potential impacts. Additional mitigation plans will be required by Planning, or in other words, Routt County. Again, we’ve been here for a long time talking about gravel pits, and every time we’re drug [sic] down and…In 2000, the Warner Pit was turned down; in 2001 we started the conceptual for the More Ranch. And I’d like to read some of my comments out of the More Ranch. This is of the conceptual hearing for November 20, 2001: Issues related to gravel, growth, housing, and transportation are all of Routt County’s concerns. It is not an issue of Lafarge being a multi-national corporation, or Lafarge’s employees, or the Mores’ tax situation, or who’s lived here the longest. It’s a complex issue for all of Routt County. It is not a NIMBY issue; it is a NIMBY world issue. In other words, we’re all opposed to gravel pits, but they’re a necessary evil. I asked, Where should the City of Steamboat Springs place the asphalt plant? Following up on Nancy’s comments—and this is back in 2001 again—is it Steamboat’s area’s residents’ concept to push undesirables either up or down the river? And again, I’ve made comments in the past in public hearings concerned about impacts of the City being borne by the County as well. Again, I’m concerned and I’ve stated in 2001, cherry-picking the aspect of the Community Plan is the problem. The South Valley Plan at present has 724 units of unplatted development. The City was unable to solve the traffic problem since I was a child, and I don’t see—and I would not feel good about contributing to the further traffic problems created by only West of Routt County gravel. Health, safety, welfare issues can be addressed. Again, this was after we had reviewed the conceptual. Where are the alternative gravel sites in the South Valley floor? Again, we’re in 2001; we’re in 2005. Nancy just talked about it: we have one place of 624 acres, basically creating its own buffer and we don’t have any opportunity to…My comment Number 11: The proposed location is a good one. Concerns may be mitigated, and there are good things about the visibility issues. My comments then, and they continue now: if tourists have to walk to the edge of Rabbit Ears Pass to see the ugly of Steamboat Springs, they should be able to do that, or they can have the opportunity to drive on past that ugly and see the cost of surviving in a prospering community. I said then, the location is a good in terms of transportation issues. I said then that there’s concerns associated with the proposed location, including the fog. We said then that the Werner Pit was the wrong location but the right operator. We come back now, and the More Pit was the right location with the right operator. We said that in 2001. I said then that the location of the asphalt plant was too close—the asphalt pant and the concrete plant was too close to its neighbors, and Page 04-9 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing it’s unfair to them as well as the community need, and the plants needed to be tucked away from the neighbors. We eliminate part of that by taking out the asphalt plant, and we will have some discussion further about further mitigating that potential with removal of the concrete plant. I said then that the issue was a controversial issue, and needs to be approached by thinking out of the box. I said, a mining plan would have to include the pod concept, immediate reclamation, and phasing to which air quality, visual impacts, water reclamation can be mitigated in a timely and appropriate manner, and then a long run some mineral deposits might be sacrificed, but the sacrifice would be worth it. I said then that minimal disturbances are encouraged regarding air and water quality, and the Colorado standards would not be enough. I said also that the initial phase of the gravel mines need to be addressed. We talked about the CDOT plan, the floodway issues, and the phasing, and the active reclamation should be in conjunction with the mining plan, and a 100-year hole after twelve years is unacceptable, neither is a 50-acre hole with six years, numerous ponds filled with water encouraged when the area’s mined out, an interactive reclamation project is also encouraged. Last thing I said on April—November 20, 2001, the project is the best for Routt County and can be mitigated to make a good project. You know, the four-year review of this pit, I don’t know how many times I’ve changed my vote and my mind on this thing—too many times to tell—it’s probably been four times this week. I have close friends on both sides of this issue. I’ve even seen evidenced by numerous letters, changes in position from some of our constituents: up or down, or down or up, constituents changing sides on this thing in the middle of the deliberation. I’ve been through, as Nancy said, the information forward, backwards, and backward again, and the Fact Packet and volumes of correspondence. I’ve reviewed and re-reviewed the Routt County Master Plan, the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan, the South Steamboat Area Plan, the zoning regulations, continually looking for holes in this application and the project, and basically coming to that we need to have the gravel pit there, and it can be mitigated. I didn’t think-- you know, this is the community jewel, the pride of the community, the classic visual, Class I visual area. Shall we demand mitigation as we always do, or should we create additional expectations that create enhancements to the project? I believe the issues in this application come down to, and Nancy elaborated on, the visual, fog, transportation, wetland issues, open space, water quality, air quality, public benefit, reduction of future dwelling units. I believe, as Nancy has said, that the visual can be mitigated. I was impressed and rather alright with the fog mitigation, especially if we were to pull out the batch plant and the potential condition from Lafarge saying that they would be able to continue their pour if a fog event happened. And I guess, well, I struggled with that so is that like, it’s alright if we don’t have—if we shut it down if we don’t have a pour, but if we have a pour, the fog’s not bad enough to really shut it down so we’ll go ahead and continue. So I guess I would—I will be willing to talk and discuss further the fog mitigation. Transportation mitigation, I believe that CDOT has done an adequate job of addressing the transportation issues. Fact I think that they will substantially lessen and remedy some of the transportation issues in our total value—in our total valley, excuse me. The wildlife concerns. There are some wildlife concerns out there. We had some discussions early with the Division of Wildlife regarding the heron rookery. The overall mitigation I believe is adequate in the wildlife issue. I believe that we actually will have a wildlife enhancement when we’re done with this gravel mining operation, and I believe with Page 04-10 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing the Army’s 404 permit, the Army Corps’ 404 wetland fill permit and the restriction regarding the construction next to the heron rookery that we will actually…I believe that we will get by that. I believe that with sufficient mitigation. The wetlands. I believe Nancy talked about that, too, as a reason why we tabled that. We asked experts to voice and sound off on their—on the wetland issue, and that we would then appropriately determine our direction based on that direction by experts. As I said on Monday night, I’m not willing to sit here and debate which expert’s which and who’s the best. We have to guess—in our capacity have to defer to the people that have the responsibility to monitor, maintain, regulate, and enforce wetland regulations. The open space. I guess I’ll defer to that one one of my next ones on down. Water quality. I believe the water quality and air quality, and--especially if we have the discussion of the air quality with the batch plant removed--with the concrete batch plant, I believe even with the batch plant, both the water quality and the air quality, both were mitigated. I mean, basically you can’t tell me we can’t have a concrete batch plant out on—sitting in the middle of 600 acres when we can have a concrete batch plant sitting down off of the James Brown Bridge. Public benefit: I guess, you know, I struggled with that, and I kind of got by the public benefit a little bit. I appreciate—I know the—that Lafarge tried to be interactive in our society. I know that they made substantial contributions to the jump—when the jump was being done, and I also know that they made a substantial quote-unquote discount or savings to the North Pit when the City and GOCO funds were able and actually Routt County PDR funds were able to acquire that. And that is somewhat I guess is a pay-it-forward a little bit of public benefit. I am very concerned though, and it just--this is a new one that we inserted in our Master Plan, during the rewrite of the Master Plan, that the reduction of future dwelling units shall specifically the—in the Routt County Master Plan, “Reductions of future residential may be included as a condition for new or extended mining operations.” I struggle with this one, and I believe we still have some opportunity and I have a suggested condition when we come back to that—regarding that. I guess I’d like to go on to a couple comments that were made during our hearings as well. The management plans—I think Nancy touched on this—management plans and our enforcement. There’ll be a covey of enforcement agencies out there, and there will be a covey of enforcement entities and regulators out there on a continual basis, and I have all the confidence in the world the air quality, water quality, wetlands inspector, and that Routt County will also be inspecting this, and this will be one of the high visibility plants, and then I believe that Lafarge is well aware of this as well, that they are in the hour glass and that people are watching them, and that they will be seen, and they know that, and they will... I believe that they will uphold their discussion. It might be an irrelevant discussion if we remove the batch plant. Again I talked about the air flow study. There was questions about the air flow study and that we hadn’t partaken in the air flow study even with just the concrete batch plant. I related my comments on that related to the batch plant in the--off the James Brown Bridge. There was a question about the importation of inert fill. And, again, that’s directly right straight out of our conditions that we encourage inert fill so that we don’t have as big and deep and huge water-holding holes in the ground. Dorie, you had a comment about our paved road and that we don’t want to make another mistake: we paved a road and then later I said we didn’t have any money regarding to have Page 04-11 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing any more paved roads. I’d just like to comment that basically we chip-sealed that road based on a 80/20 State air quality mitigation funds, and those were funds to lessen air quality PM- 10s in the whole valley floor there, and that was a huge reason why we moved forward with that paved road. And yes, we still do not have monies to be paving roads out there in Routt County. Industrial complex: I guess I disagree a little bit on what Nancy said, that Routt County Master Plan encourages—or it says that batch plants are acceptable in the ag area if they’re adjacent to or with the extraction industry gravel operations. We’ve already had the discussion as well with the City of Steamboat Springs regarding them being able to step forward and find us a place to have a batch plant; to put it closer to the actual use of the materials and have that industrial zone--be included in an industrial zone. And again, their comments back to us was, no, the best place to have that is closer to our aggregate source. We struggle with the entryway to the growth center. I struggled with that, and we had talked about this in 2001. I think our Steamboat Springs Area Community update Plan was pretty clear that this does not qualify as an entryway into our growth center. Mr. Reynolds, in our meeting the other day, indicated--his words exactly were, ‘this is a well-funded, designed opposition to pluck the emotional and environmental heartstrings of a community.’ But, again, it has done that, and yet I think that we’ve come out with a much better application, and I believe we are going to be able to come up with an operation that will meet the needs of the community. We had a discussion of the silica sand issue. I believe that has been adequately addressed through our discussions. We’ve had some discussions about new material and a substantial change to our application that should go back to Planning. My feeling on this, I believe that we’ve--this is the same application that we had when we started off the actual application, and it’s slightly been adjusted based on—from the conceptual review—based on the comments that came from our conceptual review. I guess I’ll follow—I will say that Nancy’s comments about the Valley Meadows Pit—MacArthur’s pit. Number one, that is not a full year-round pit based on right now and will not service the needs of South Routt. I guess I do support that pit being some time cleaned up and removed. Had some discussion about gravel pits and open space; how the—my comments and directly that--I believe that gravel pits are, somewhat, in the long run, will become open space, and I support housing out there—I do not support the housing out there. And the 35-acre continually splitting up of the land. We’ve had questions about the material being acceptable. Well, Number one, I don’t care if we left the batch plant in, it was going to be a condition that they weren’t going to—I was not going to accept any material from out of any other pits and that they have to work with the materials within that pit. That leaves the risk level—or the onus of risk, on the applicant, and basically, if the material’s not acceptable for concrete material, then they’d have to be getting other material, and they’d have to be going to a different location to be making concrete. We’ve continually discussion [sic], in fact I’ve heard contacts about the tourism, and this is the first place that they see coming off Rabbit Ears Pass and Highway 40 and it will be a visual blight and…Had a guy called me and said, Well, you know, this is Highway 40. It’ll be a scar on a pretty woman’s face. And I just went, Well, you know, we have all the tourists coming from our Regional Airport, and they drive by five pits. I hope that our community is Page 04-12 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing finer and prettier as we get into the community that we can look by the materials that are needed to provide the living that we needed to live. The well monitoring plan: we’ve had some discussions about that well monitoring plan, and I—this will be a critical part of our mitigation. I also believe that basically even with Phase III removed, we still will need to have some type of well-monitoring mitigations. Again, I believe this project needs extraordinary mitigation and it could be a good project. We had some discussions about Lafarge’s environmental policies. You know, I guess we do our best to create an environment, and we create expectations of Lafarge to be a good neighbor, and I continue to believe that Lafarge will be a good neighbor and provide the environmental policies and the implementation of those policies to move forward on this. We had some discussion about the CDOT pit in [and?] the South acceleration lane. I believe that CDOT is the expert in that, and I will defer to the CDOT permit and not be interjecting into that discussion as well. We’ve had some discussion about the Suttle Ditch move, and I believe that the conditions that are put in the application are acceptable and basically, again, puts the onus on the permittee and the applicant to move forward and making sure that the water’s delivered. Be my last comment. Again, I struggled very much, and I think it’s an integral part. We talked about public benefit. We talked about preserving building spaces, and I’d asked Lafarge on Monday night to describe and define their public benefit. I was a little—I apologize, Gary, but I was a little disappointed in your comeback, but (chuckle)…I believe that Lafarge—and I would propose some type of a—I have drafted up a condition that I would like to see put in here. And again, I guess if we move forward and have further discussions and diminish the amount of the pit area and/or the mined area, that this condition could be adjusted, but I believe that we need to hold—I would like to see Lafarge held up to some type of preserving buildable spaces that are not to be built on, even though they do not have the opportunity to do that on the mine’s parcel that they have. So I guess my comment would be, this would be a condition that I would propose: ‘Prior to any sales, permittee shall acquire, conserve, and donate to a qualified land trust entity a conservation easement to protect further development on any contiguous 128 acres of land located in areas as covered by the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan.’ I think the intent of this is that we protect from future development and the non-double-dipping as I’ve discussed in past hearings on this 128 acres or whatever this acreage might be. And if they can’t provide it in the acreage directly affected by the mining site itself, that we allow them to be able to go out and mitigate that the same way they’re able to mitigate wetlands in a replacement mode. So I guess with that, I’m done babbling, and I would support Commissioner Stahoviak’s moving forward and working on some specific language, conditions, and/or modifications to the application itself. Thank you. Ellison: Thank you, Doug. I’m not sure that I could find much new to state at this point in time. I do, however, agree with the comments that you have made on this issue. The South Valley is very important, special place in this area, and we need to pay very close attention to how things happen up there. And, as we go forward, if we go forward, we need to ensure that the petitioner understands that all of the Commissioners are on the same (inaudible for verbatim transcription, but it was Stahoviak saying that she could not hear Ellison). Okay. Sorry. Monger: Your mike’s not on. Ellison: Yes, it is. It’s on. Sorry you couldn’t hear me. Page 04-13 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing I will not necessarily go on as long as Doug—I’m sure I won’t. I do concur with the statements he’s made and believe that this is a very important decision, and that, if we go forward towards an approval, that we will expect a high standard of operation and reclamation and leaving the land in an appropriate condition that would not—does not leave a terrible scar on the Valley. Gravel, and the use of gravel, is generally not really very high until you get into a populated area, and we all want—or most people seem to want better roads and sidewalks and concrete that they can afford to help build their foundations and put their houses on and things of that nature. Well, if your gravel pit’s 20-30 miles away, it’s going to—certainly going to change cost of the thing—of anything that you do that takes gravel. And man tends to need lots of things that take gravel. I believe that we can work through this and come up with a pit that—a project that can meet the needs of the community and meet the—in being one that will be capable of being put in the Valley and not be an eyesore and will serve the needs of the community as it continues to grow. And I don’t know that I need to go on a great deal longer because I think Doug said many of those things very well, and very thoroughly, and I think that’s the way we intend to proceed is in a matter that way. Monger: We have some specific items that we need to talk about, and specifically we have a discussion about a batch plant; we have discussion about Phase III—you can jump in any time you want to, Nancy. We’ve also got the discussion about transportation and the fog limitation and your potential suggestion for some timeframe of a 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.? Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: And we also have the discussion of the dropping--if the batch plant was taken out, we’d be dropping the disturbed acreage down to 25 versus the 30. Are those the issues that you see right now, Nancy? Stahoviak: Yes. Those are the ones that I feel--and as far as I’m concerned, they’re kind of the ones for me that are deal-breakers. If we can’t come to a decision on these, I can’t support this application. My concern about the batch plant is not only that it’s an industrial operation, but that it will no longer be able to be put on the floor of the operation but will be located totally above-ground. I believe there’s no way to mitigate that visual impact from the batch plant. I also have serious doubts as to whether the aggregate that’s going to be in this permit—this pit—will be able to be of the right composition to produce concrete without importing something. And I, like you, Doug, am not in favor of importing any additional gravel materials. So, to me, the way we take care of that problem and that issue is, we eliminate the batch plant, because it can’t be substantially mitigated. We have one concrete batch plant in the community, like you said, it is located in the industrial area. So I know the batch plant can be located somewhere else. And we know that, oftentimes, materials need to be imported to produce the kind of concrete that you need. So, I feel pretty strongly that we cannot allow the batch plant as part of this operation. Monger: I actually will concur with that because I believe this is where we can add our enhancement and our mitigation in relationship to the further mitigation from our perceived entryways, and the ability to further mitigate that and to further mitigate the Class I visual area—is that how it’s defined, John? Eastman: ‘Class I visual preservation area’ is how it’s defined, here. Monger: So I guess I would support that: elimination of the batch plant. So basically Lafarge will have to find a home for a batch plant. Ellison: Are we talking concrete or asphalt? Page 04-14 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Monger: Both. Ellison: Both? I would have some concerns about totally prohibiting. I think that there are projects that, even if you limit it to some size--certain times of the year, or when there are specific projects in the area, I think that that could be worked out. I have less problem, I guess, with the concrete batch plant than I do with an asphalt batch plant. Monger: Well, Commissioner Stahoviak said this is a deal-breaker. I guess I concur that the added mitigation here that we’re asking for, I believe it puts an onus back on the City of Steamboat Springs to provide us a place to put a concrete batch plant, to take care of the needs of at least some of the needs of Steamboat Springs. Stahoviak: I agree, Doug. I agree. We will still have a concrete batch plant in the area. If that concrete batch plant cannot keep up with the needs of construction in the community, then they’re going to have to find another way to get the concrete, or construction will have to proceed at a slower pace. But I feel that it’s no longer our responsibility to provide for that industrial use in rural Routt County. Phase III, do you want to talk about Phase III? Monger: That would be good. Stahoviak: Phase III, is approximately, I believe, nine acres, and it is an area that I know the adjoining property owners have tried to talk to Lafarge about and get them to take that out of the Plan. I know that some Planning Commission members also tried to encourage Lafarge to do that, and Lafarge was not willing to do that. I believe that that nine acres—and Lafarge’s reason was because there’s gravel resource there, we feel we need to mine it. So my feeling is that it gets too close to those adjoining property owners. And I agree with you, Doug: that doesn’t mean that the wells in that area would not need to be monitored because we have another condition that addresses any wells that are within 300 feet of the gravel mining operation would still have to be monitored. But I just think, the other impacts to those neighbors from having a gravel mining operation that close is not fair to those neighbors and cannot be mitigated, and I’m convinced if we allow Phase III to stay in, we’re going to have easement [?—inaudible word] problems when they begin mining in that area. Ellison: I would concur. Monger: I guess in relationship to Phase III, in my picture that I would be acceptable, at this point in time, taking that Phase III out. We also realize that this is a ten-year permit, and five- year review and basically life-of-pit. In another commissioner’s position, at that point in time, ten years from now or whatever, they can decide—Lafarge could further decide that they want to expand their permit based on their perceived public perception, they can do that based on the will of the commissioners and the will of the public at that point in time. So I’m alright with taking that out as well. So we talked about—the next one was the fog hours that you had? Stahoviak: Yes. 2398 Monger: I believe that was your only transportation comment, was it not? Stahoviak: Yes, it was. I believe even with a warning. You know, Doug, you talked about you thought that they were in the middle of a hole. Well, if a truck is in the middle of hauling from the pit, and the fog is there, there until they get there, what is that truck going to do? Well, that truck is either going to try to turn around in the middle of the highway, or go down to County Road 18 and try to turn around, but there is something there that is still going to cause a safety hazard. And currently, the condition ‘the loading and hauling of materials during the week would be from 8:30 to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and then start at 9:00 a.m., on Saturday. So my condition would read that during that timeframe, of the year, Page 04-15 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing when we normally have the fog situation—to me, it can occur anywhere from the middle of August to the end of May, covers most of that time when we have that that we would increase the hours of hauling to one-and-a-half hours later, Monday through Friday, which was 10 o’clock, and an hour later on Saturday, which would be 10 o’clock. Now Lafarge, in their request for changes to this condition, wanted us to go the other way: they want to be able to start at 7:30 during the week and 7:00 a.m. on Saturday. And to me, that’s contrary to what they said in their initial guideline discussion in their fog mitigation. One of the ways they were going to help with the fog mitigation was to have start-up times and haul times later. Now they’re reversing on that and saying, no we want to start earlier, and we think our fog mitigationplan takes care of all of the fog issues. I have absolutely no confidence that that will help, and I don’t want the responsibility on my shoulders if we have a failure in the equipment; a truck that fails to realize that they can’t go to the pit to haul, and we have some type of a serious accident. The entryway to this pit is far enough down Highway 131 in relation to the South Pit that it causes even more concern because the closer you get to that Yampa River Bridge, the denser the fog becomes. So I think that the only way we can mitigate that issue and concern is for a specified timeframe and then maybe have a condition that says something that, if it determined that there is fog in the valley, sooner or later than August 15th and May 31st, that at some point in time, we may adjust those dates to the condition. So I think right now probably August 15th to May 31st will cover the fog issue. Monger: I guess I had a little more faith in technology, but I understand your concern about truck drivers or whatever already heading off to the plant, and where do they—and you’re right, they actually would then—couldn’t get into the pits and end up driving 18 or 14 to then turn around, causing a traffic issue as well. So I guess I would support your concept as well that we have some type of ability to modify this. We’ll never cover one-hundred percentile of ensuring that there will never be fog out there, and yet we need to come up with some type of a level and, I defer to your experience of driving that road for 29 years, knowing when the fog is there. I know when the fog’s on my place, and I know when and how it gets there as well, so I don’t have any problem moving forward with the 8-15—August 15th to May 31st, if we have some ability to change either up and/or down from those timeframes. And I—the next one I think, I believe we had was the… Stahoviak: Did Dan have any about the fog issue? Monger: I’m sorry. Ellison: You’re talking the—you said August 15th to May 1st as the…Monger: That’s what Nancy proposed. Stahoviak: May 31st. Ellison: The 31st; May 31st? Okay. And 8:15 is the start time? Stahoviak: No; ten a.m. would be the start time. Ellison: Ten a.m. is the start time? Stahoviak: Yes, because lots of times there is still fog in the Valley at 9:30. Ellison: Okay. And then, after May 31st and before August 15th, would there be some specific time limit put in there? Monger: Same as what---Stahoviak: Yes, then it would go back to the start times that were included in the Planning Commission’s motion, and they were like 8:30 and 8:00, I believe it was. Ellison: Okay. Monger: Yes, 8:30 to 6:00 p.m., and 9 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Page 04-16 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Stahoviak: Yes. As we work through the conditions, all those specific conditions, we’ll make some specific changes at that time to that area. Ellison: Alright. I’m fine with that. Monger: So the last item that you had, Nancy, was the limit for 25 acres, as disturbed acreage. And I know that Planning staff has kind of a rule of thumb and that’s how that number was arrived at was the 25 acres for a normal pit, I believe, and then 5 acres for each plant that might be associated with it. Is that how it goes, your rule of thumb, John? Eastman: That’s fairly accurate. I have to admit, I went back through the Gravel Matrix, and in the Gravel Matrix discussions it talks about two acres for each additional plant. Will note that both the—well, the three major pits on the west side of town: Duckels-Hogue, Precision, Precision-Camelletti Pit and the Connell-Thompson Pit, all have a maximum disturbed acreage of 25 acres. McConnell-Thompson does include an asphalt plant as well. Monger: So I’m alright with the 25 acres. I believe that having the—by removing both of the batch plants, again, we’re trying to make some accommodations and maqke mitigations and some compromises amongst what we see with the information provided to us, and I believe that’s an adequate number. Stahoviak: The only other thing that I had commented on that we might want to discuss in addition to your condition regarding public benefit, Doug, which I think is a good one, was whether or not we want to limit the number of tons per year that can come out of this pit. We normally, when we approve a gravel operation, we do set an upper minimum, on the number of tons that can be hauled out of that pit annually. And what Lafarge is saying is, it would be no more than 460,000 tons, but it doesn’t sound like their current operations reach that anywhere closely. There was a comment made during the public hearing about one of the permits that was gotten I believe from the Colorado Department of Health that there was something in that permit that said that they were limited to hauling, I believe it was 350,000 tons a year. Is that so, John? Eastman: Nancy, I’m going to have to double check. I know which permit you’re talking about. Let me look it up and get back with you. Stahoviak: Because I would not object to us limiting the haul—the number of tons hauled out of this pit, and I think we need to do it in order to kind of keep a reduction on the truck traffic and the activity in that area, and, to me, 350,000 tons is quite a lot. Eastman: Nancy, just to interject: the construction permit, the initial approval for Lafarge for the sand and gravel operation, does specifically list 460,000 tons per year. Stahoviak: And that’s the Colorado Department of Health? Eastman: Correct. I’m holding a construction permit, Permit Number 03RO0044F, Initial Approval, dated April 9, 2003, issued to Lafarge West for a sand and gravel operation, located west half, Section 21, Township 5 North, Range 85 West. This is the APEN, or construction permit, that covers the gravel pit itself, and Condition Number 4 specifically lists 460,000 tons per year. Stahoviak: And how much was made—produced out of the South Pit annually? Because I think at one point in the Staff Packet it said something like, this is like 24% more than they had been hauling and producing out of their other operation. Eastman: Nancy, it went up and down. I’m looking at the sales figures we have since 1997. The low year was 2002, and it was 263,000 tons; the high year was 2000, and it was 490,000 tons.

Page 04-17 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Stahoviak: Oh, wow. So I guess my question is, for you, Dan and Doug, do we want to put a limit on tons per year, and what do we want that limit to be? Ellison: It would seem to me that if you put a limit on it, and there’s more work to do because of highway projects and normal building and things like that are high in one particular year, then you probably cause someone else to come in with a pit, or go somewhere else to get it. And we would wind up having the same sort of a problem, and I guess I would not want to limit it below what is reasonable to anticipate because there are going to be every few years there’s going to be a spike because you happen to have two or three big projects go at the same time. I could see putting a ceiling on it, but not one that would either not be reviewable or for a specific year or something like that because there were more projects, or else let’s make it somewhere in a reasonable level that ‘s similar to what we have occurring on a fairly regular basis. Monger: So John, you said that the permit was 350,000 for the…? Eastman: No. the air pollution permit for the pit, that’s already been approved, is for 460,000 tons per year. That’s their upper limit according to their air pollution permit. Monger: Well, I guess I have some mixed comments here on this thing. And you said we had hauled how many acres out—how many tons out? Eastman: Between ’97 and 2002, when the pit closed, it ranged from 260,000 to 490,000. Monger: Well, there’s two ways of looking at this: The faster we get the material out of there, the faster this thing gets reclaimed and the rest; and the slower, if we limit it, we further limit the—we do limit the traffic that’s going to be involved in there, but then we’re also extending the life of the pit, and how much longer it’s there, so there’s two ways of looking at that. I guess I would—you know, we—the other thought is is that we have been very consistent in the past in limiting the numbers of sales, and I guess for consistency purposes, it might be a good idea to put us a limit on it. Go ahead, John. Stahoviak: Why don’t we use the limit that was part of their APEN, would be 460,000 acres—or tons, which is what Lafarge also included in their application that would probably be the top amount that they haul out in one year? Eastman: Just a comment from a staff point of view: I think, it’s very legitimate. They essentially said they anticipate a maximum of 460,000 tons a year. I do believe that just by putting that into the application, that could be conceived of as a limitation. I do want to point out, you actually don’t have maximum annual tonnage limits on the majority of pits in Routt County. They tend to be specific to particular issues. I’ll give you two examples: the Connell-Tellier pit and the Hockin Murphy pit are both specifically limited to 80,000 and I think the other one is 50 or 60,000 tons a year, specifically related to not having to do access improvements out onto the highway at those levels, that was the trigger for access improvements. The Connell-Thompson and Duckels-Hogue pit, which are sort of two of the bigger pits out west, have no permit limits in terms of how much they can haul. The Precision-Cameletti pit down by Milner does have limits. They’re at 180,000 tons a year, and that, I think, is the one that’s the most similar to this. Those were put on in relation to land use compatibility issues and concerns that if there was too much being hauled out of there just that alone might be a problem. That one allows for administrative approvals to bump that up considerably, given some sort of review. Monger: So I would—let’s leave it; I would concur with the 460. It’s in the application; let’s move on. Ellison: Alright. Stahoviak: Okay. Page 04-18 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Monger: So Dan, you didn’t make a comment about the 25 acres. Were you alright with 25 acres? Ellison: Yes. Monger: So do we want to…Stahoviak: Let’s work through the conditions. Monger: Please. In reviewing these myself, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine are adequate. Stahoviak: I have a couple of comments on those, Doug, before we move on to the other ones. Under Condition #2, it says, ‘The SUP is limited to the uses and facilities as presented in the approved project plan.’ Where do we say that no asphalt batch plant will be allowed? Because what is considered ‘the approved project plan’? Monger: Well, it seems like we will make that in our motion that we will be approving a gravel pit, and then in the motion that came to us from Planning Commission—Stahoviak: --will be a concrete plant. Monger --that came from the Planning was—Stahoviak: Right. Monger: They included asphalt plant, concrete plant, crusher, wash —Stahoviak: Right. Monger: -- shop, office trailer, and associated facilities. And then that we can just remove from that the asphalt plant and the concrete plant. Stahoviak: Okay. That sounds fine, and there is a condition on the next page that talks about approved uses. And so we can just reiterate there that there, I believe, that there will be no asphalt batch plant or concrete batch plant allowed. So that would be okay. But on Condition #9, ‘flammable materials and hazardous materials shall be kept in a safe area.’ There was a public comment made regarding diesel fuel spills and whether or not any types of spills of hazardous materials or diesel fuel has to be reported. My question, I guess, for you, John, would be, would it be appropriate to add something to that condition that says, ‘Any spills of fuel or hazardous materials shall be reported to the Planning Department within seven days of the spill occurring’, or even a shorter timeframe? Eastman: You could sure do that. I’d like to get some input from Mike Zopf, who’s sitting here as well. Stahoviak: Okay. Eastman: And see what the standard reporting requirements are and how that would fit into that. Zopf: Yes, Nancy, there are thresholds for specific substances, for example, diesel fuel would have a threshold of—I’m not sure offhand, I’d say five gallons of diesel fuel, or if any material ever was discharged or found its way into what’s considered State waters, that would be reportable to the State. So there is a list of thresholds that we should reference and make part of the permit. Stahoviak: Well, my thought kind of was that—because we’re talking about reporting that to Routt County—and then Routt County can determine, I believe, depending on whatever the thresholds are, at that point in time whether or not further reporting needs to occur. But I concur with the comment that it wouldn’t hurt for spills of fuel or hazardous materials to be reported to us under this SUP, and whether or not maybe a certain threshold because then we’ll have some indication of whether or not these problems occur and whether or not we need to be concerned about them. Tuttle: Mr. Chair. The program indicated that the applicant may be able to make some comments during the condition deliberation, and we do have some thoughts that might contribute to your discussion. So at the appropriate time we would ask that we could speak with you about the conditions. Ellison: Yes. Okay. Tuttle: Thank you.

Page 04-19 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Monger: I would be amenable to allowing that to happen right now. Nancy, do you have any comments? Stahoviak. No. That would be fine. Tuttle: Thank you very much. We have a couple of—or several things that you’re talking about that concern us. I think, let me start off with the concrete plant. The concrete plant is an important element of our application and our business because it, just like the sand and gravel, it is a necessary construction product in our market area. We—Stahoviak: Dan, I’m sorry. I’m going to have to interrupt, Gary, because that’s not a condition; that’s something we want to take out. And I think we’ve already agreed to do that. So an argument to try to get us to put it back in here is not going to sit very well with me—I don’t know about the other two Commissioners. If you have a specific condition that we’re looking at, other than the changes that we already have your initial changes. If there is a condition in here that we have talked about that you would like to give input on, or another condition, I’m willing to hear that, but I’m not willing to hear any arguments about the asphalt--or the concrete batch plant. That would be up to you to determine whether or not it makes sense to you to move forward. Tuttle: Nancy, my comments I hope that I will demonstrate to the Commissioners that taking out the concrete plant is not a productive condition. And situation with this—with our application and I would that I have that opportunity to talk about it because it is a very important element. And I think that it is a condition; it has not been finalized by a vote, and I would request the ability to speak with you about it. Ellison: I think that you should have the opportunity to speak specifically about that. Monger: I’m alright with you speaking, too, but you’ve heard the direction here, and I think, you know, I wouldn’t be looking for a lot of… Stahoviak: And the concern that I have is, through public comment, there were a lot of concerns brought up about both batch plants. And at that time, Lafarge had the opportunity to talk about the importance of those batch plants to this operation. So in opening it up to Lafarge making now that argument at this point in time, then we open it up to public comment so the public can comment on what Lafarge has said. Maybe we need some advice from our Attorney, here, but my concern is, trying to allow this process to occur, we’ve already heard all the comments. There was public comment regarding the concerns about batch plants. Lafarge had every opportunity as part of numerous presentations to talk about them in more depth, and for some reason they chose not to. Tuttle: I can address—Stahoviak: Can I hear from John Merrill, please? Merrill: Well, I think that the Board can restrict comments of the applicant at this point for the reason that there was an opportunity earlier to address those issues. I think if the applicant is allowed to address them, then you probably are going to have to allow the public also to comment on those specific points, which is really going to re-open this debate. Stahoviak: I’m sorry; I just don’t want to go there. Monger: I agree, Gary. I think we need to move on. What else do you want… Tuttle: Other conditions. There was mention about the quality of the sand and gravel. It is good to make concrete. We will concede our suggestion that we be allowed to import products for the first year of the operation. With regard to the elimination of Phase III, we will concede that. With regard to the—our fog mitigation plan, there was comments made by Commissioner Stahoviak doubting the reliability of this system. This is a system that is used on almost every airport that goes into instrument landing. So if you have ever taken off at an airport in fog, rain, or snow, this specific technology was used. It is proven technology. We Page 04-20 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing will concede the continuation of a pour where fog exceeds our distance thresholds. The--So what I’m saying is that the proposed conditions about limiting hours of operation during the fall, winter, and spring, we believe that the record shows that the technology will work. We talked about acres of disturbance. We asked for 37 acres. Our visual impact analysis in the record was done on 37 acres. Our initial approval on our site air quality permit was based on 40 acres. We know the market demand, and I am telling you that with 25 acres of disturbance, we cannot provide for the market in the south Steamboat and South Routt, and South Valley area with 25 acres of disturbance. So this limitation will result in more material coming in from west Steamboat and more pits in west Steamboat, or it will result in the expansion or the new application for a permit in the South Valley. This is counterproductive to what I heard you say, Commissioner Monger, about material coming and being used in the local area. So I would request that you reconsider the 25 acres. We asked for 37; I believe we could work with 33, and we would ask you to look at that. Thank you. Ellison: Thank you. Monger: Thanks, Gary. You know, the 25 acres—and I agree with you regarding--I mean, if you have the ability of 25 acres, and that’s what you need, you just move it faster, and it goes out. I mean, the machine runs that much faster to get all that. I, well, and basically, I concur with Commissioner Stahoviak the rest of these guys are moving material. The volume of material that’s moved out of a pit during a year, I cannot believe would be contingent upon the number of disturbed acres. So I just, I guess I’m not a professional, but at the same point and time, in relationship to your fog mitigation discussion and the expertise of the machinery or the technology that’s being used, again, we’re not prohibiting you from putting in that technology and then providing to us that that has opportunities of working and coming back to us and asking for a change in the permit, based on the implementation and successful operation of it. That’s why we also included in that condition the opportunity for that—those timeframes to be adjusted. Stahoviak: Doug, I guess what I would like to do is work through the conditions, we’ll come up to each of those conditions, and I’m going to save my comments for that time. So that hopefully, in the interest of time, we can just kind of now work through the conditions in a straightforward manner and not skip around, if that would be okay? Ellison: I think that would be appropriate. Stahoviak: So on Condition #9, what I was recommending was that we put in some type of a statement that, ‘Any spills of any type of a fuel or hazardous material shall be reported to the Routt County Planning Department within three days.’ Monger: Dee doesn’t have a copy of these draft minutes, Mr. Eastman, do you have something for her? We’ve got to make sure she’s got them or we’re all in trouble. Eastman: Yes, they’re in Binder #2, Dee. Stahoviak: They’re in the very back of Binder #2. Monger: Got them? Bolton: Yes. Thank you. Monger: Thank you. Eastman: And I do have a couple of extra copies here, if somebody wants them. Monger: So where are we at on Condition 10, if we put in the mitigation of decreased hours, where’re we at on Condition 10? Are we still requiring them? Stahoviak: Well, probably truck entrance signs. I think we need a fog warning sign. I’m not exactly sure what that would say. So I think probably right now, especially if we stay with-- and I’m not willing to change what I said initially, because I believe that in an airport environment it’s very different than gauging fog on a highway. And we didn’t hear any

Page 04-21 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing testimony that said that a similar situation has been used on an active highway in different conditions than you have at an airport. Monger: So I would suggest, then, that we just remove the words, ‘to install fog warning and’. Stahoviak: Well, we want to leave out ‘to install’ and just take out ‘fog warning and…’ so we say--Monger: Oh, right. Okay. Stahoviak: truck entrance signs at appropriate locations, okay? Monger: Yup. Ellison: Okay. Monger: Specific Condition #1? Stahoviak: Looks good. Monger: Yup. Condition 2? Stahoviak: We could take out ‘fog mitigation system’. So it would say, ‘Access improvements and visual landscaping berms shall be completed prior to any outside sales from the mine.’ But then it says, ‘intersection improvements shall comply with the approved CDOT access permit. Monger: I guess I had a question with that, John. Why did we change that word ’intersection’? Why didn’t we leave it at ‘the access improvements’? Same as you had at the first of that sentence? Eastman: I was trying for a clarification, and it may be more appropriate to say, because that sentence was specifically discussed in the access improvements. It could say—I’d probably change it to say, ‘these’ because that sort of implies—it talks about the sentence above, which includes landscaping. Stahoviak: Right. Eastman: I’d probably say, “These access improvements shall comply with approved CDOT access permit.” Monger: Okay. Stahoviak: That sounds good. Monger: Condition 3, which was 4? Stahoviak: I think on that one we need to say, 4 which was 3, right? Monger: Right. Stahoviak: Okay. ‘Importation of gravel materials is not allowed as part of this permit.’ Oh, and then, ‘Import of inert fill to be recycled is allowed.’ So in that sentence, take out ‘ and asphalt paving and concrete.’ Is that for during construction, the asphalt, paving, and concrete? Eastman: Nancy, the intent there is, on certain jobs when they’re pulling up old parking lots or whatever, they may come—have a certain amount of asphalt or concrete, they can then import that, crush it into a material that is then reused, and sold. Stahoviak: Okay, so that would be the recycle, those things? Ellison: Right. Stahoviak: Okay, then I’m okay with that last sentence. So the way I would see this reading would be, “Importation of gravel material is not allowed as part of this permit. Importation of inert fill and asphalt, paving, and concrete to be recycled, is allowed.” Ellison: Alright. Monger: So I believe that that fits in our—the applicant indicated that the imported material was the specialty rock, was going to be used in the concrete production? That’s what you indicated. Stahoviak: Right. Lafarge (speaker unknown): For salt and sand. Eastman: Yes, that had occurred to me. I’d like a clarification. You made it very clear that importation of gravel materials is not allowed; do you consider salt a gravel material? Stahoviak: I don’t consider salt a gravel material. Eastman: That was my interpretation, so by leaving it the way you worded it, if Lafarge was to operate this pit, and they got the salt/sand contract from CDOT, they would be allowed to

Page 04-22 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing import a couple loads of salt that are necessary to create the salt/sand mix? Monger: Yes. Ellison: I would hope so. Stahoviak: Okay. The next one, we need to cross out ‘concrete plant’, and then I would like to add a sentence at the end that says, ‘Neither an asphalt or concrete batch plant is allowed.’ Monger: ‘Neither a concrete or asphalt plant is allowed’? Stahoviak: Right. Monger: Condition 5’s alright? Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: And Condition 6, the extraction and reclamation, I believe the way we have it written out of our minutes here, as referred to the Planning Commission, I believe, is alright with me. Stahoviak: It’s okay with me. Monger: In other words, 6a is alright? Ellison: Right. Monger: 6b is alright. Stahoviak: 6c would read, “Loading and hauling of material from October 15th through May 31st would be 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. (Here, someone in the audience said something that is inaudible on the tape.) Eastman: Just a correction, Nancy: you meant August 15th not October 15th? Stahoviak: Yes, 8-15; I’m sorry; 8-15 to May 31st, Monday through Friday, and then 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday. And then from June 1st to August 15th, loading and hauling of material could occur as the Planning Commission had recommended, which is 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday. Monger: I lost you on that last part. Where were you—what were you--I was trying to write down what we got here. So we were loading and hauling of material? Stahoviak: Yes. And after the time limitation from August 15th to May 31st…Monger: Right. Stahoviak: --and during the other time, which would be June 1st to August 15th, then all your hauling of material could occur as the Planning Commission approved it, which would be 8:30 to 6, Monday through Friday; 9:00 to 2:00 on Saturday. Monger: Okay. Stahoviak: We could take out the next condition on the concrete operation. Monger: Yup. Stahoviak: The next one, I’m confused about why that shut-down time is going to be 5:30 p.m. during the winter months, as opposed to 6 p.m. There’s not really that much difference; that’ a half hour. Eastman: Nancy, just to give you background: I think that’s a carryover from the old South Pit permit. And I believe, if I’m recalling correctly, Caryn or somebody else jump in if your recollect’s different, it was an effort to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood a little bit more in the wintertime and say, Okay, we know in the summer we need to operate a little longer, but in the winter you can scale it back, and shut down a little earlier. That was the intent, is my understanding, and so when I started with the conditions of approval, I started with sort of the existing South and North Pits as a template. Stahoviak: Well, I guess to me there’s not much difference in a half hour. Monger: Well, let’s simplify government: we’ll take that one out. Stahoviak: Alright. Monger: Condition f is what we’ve been doing? Stahoviak: Yes, that’s okay. Monger: Condition g? Ellison: Okay. Stahoviak: That’s okay with me. Okay, then h is the next one. Monger: Right. And then h? Stahoviak: I believe that with the hours of operation that we have suggested, loading and hauling…Eastman: Nancy, do you want…Stahoviak—loading and hauling, I don’t think there’s going to be any conflicts with school buses, except for in the afternoon, maybe. Eastman: I was going to say, I did talk to Steamboat Springs School District. I thought we-- you might want this information. Talked to Ed Dingledine from the School District. The bus Page 04-23 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing comes by northbound on 131 at 7:40 in the morning, so based on your current conditions, you’ve got no conflict in the morning. It comes southbound after turning off County Road 20 at approximately 4:15 in the afternoon, and I specifically asked Ed if he would like conditions restricting operations around those hours, and he said, yes, that would be helpful. Ellison: So the morning time is alright; the afternoon time needs to be adjusted? Eastman: Yeah, you—Stahoviak: What is the conflict with the school bus? That it will be turning out onto the highway? Because the school bus, as far as my recollection is, the school bus on Highway 131 drops kids off right at the Brether property. That’s the first place it stops. Eastman: I can interject. I did talk to Ed about the specific drop-offs, and if I’m wrong on this, please correct me: Ed said in the afternoon, it turns off County Road 20, and then it turns in to County Road 18 so that it can make a turn-around. I think the conflict is probably as it turns—Ed and I talked about this a little bit—as it turns out of County Road 20, a truck leaving the pit or accelerating, and it’s got to turn across that traffic. That’s really the potential conflict that exists. Then again, as it turns left into County Road 18, if there are trucks returning to the pit, I’m not sure that there’s much you can do about that. Really the only thing you could say is, if you shut down trucks leaving the pit for the time period until the school bus has pulled out, you could avoid some conflict with trucks accelerating to the north. Monger: Well, help us, here. I’m confuse Ellison: yeah. Stahoviak: Well, you know, most of the time when we talk about school bus conflict it’s because we’re conflicting with a school bus that is trying to let children off of the bus on the County Road. Eastman: That’s correct. Stahoviak: In this instance, it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening. And when that bus pulls out from County Road 20 onto 131, it’s going to incur traffic anyway. So I’m kind of at a loss as to how we would say that condition. Is it during the school year that they have to stop hauling operations until they see the school bus pull out after 2:15? How would we say that? Audience member: (indistinguishable.) Stahoviak: I don’t know who’s talking, but I don’t think they need to be. Eastman: Nancy, I was just sort of trying to give you the information. You’re absolutely right. The place we’ve used this most is on County Road 27 as related to the various coal haul permits we have. And you’re absolutely right, there at certain times there were pick-ups on the road, and all hauling operations were—they had to shut down; they had to pull off the side of the road at times where there was pick-ups happening. In the afternoons there are no pick-ups or drop-offs immediately on 131—in the morning, there would be. But in the afternoon, they’re pulling off onto County Road 18 and dropping off onto County Road 18. So it’s just up to you in terms of how you want to handle it; that’s what’s happening with the school buses. Monger: Again, I struggle with—it’d be different if we were stopping on the highway. It might be a little different; I have a little bit of a concern limiting hours on the State highway there so I guess I would like to leave the condition the hours of operation may at BCC discretion be amended to avoid conflicts with school buses. Ellison: That’s appropriate, I think. Monger: So instead of ‘shall’ we would have ‘may, at BCC discretion.’ So we would have it, you know… Stahoviak: And as usual, ---?(inaudibly word or phrase) be a problem. Monger: Absolutely. Stahoviak: I would say the other thing that we could maybe do is require Lafarge to put signage or something at their exit from the pit noting that, ‘Caution; Watch for School Bus Page 04-24 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Turning on the Highway from 2 to 2:30 in the afternoon’ or something like that. In a way that :Lafarge could help us educate the people that haul in and out of the pit that that may be happening, and they would be a little more cognizant of kind of watching for that school bus. And if there’s no way we can do that, then I think there’s no way we can do that. I just think, you know, everybody’s going to have to exercise caution on that one. Monger: So are we alright with that, or do you want to add that specific wording, Nancy, regarding the signage in the pit? Stahoviak: Maybe what we need to say is, ‘Lafarge shall work with the Planning Department on a system to educate those hauling in and out of the pit as to the possible conflict with school buses.’ Does that sound okay, John? Eastman: Yeah. Because I will take that to mean signage at the exit, and we’ll make sure that’s adjustable for hours. Then also, I would envision something being either handed or possibly signed by the drivers using that pit the first time they come in or on some annual basis. We can work with Lafarge to figure something out. Stahoviak: Okay. Monger: That sounds good. Ellison: Yup. Monger: So we’re up to Condition 7? I believe that’s alright. Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: Eight? Alright? Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: Condition 9, we’re going to adjust down to twenty-five. Stahoviak: Yes, and I agree with your comments on that, Doug. I think the disturbed acreage is not an indication of what’s being hauled out of the pit. If they need more gravel mined, then they can just reclaim quicker and disturb more acreage. Let’s see—wait, ‘Disturbance caused by the initial construction of the 131 intersection will not be included in the disturbed area.’ Lafarge wanted added, ‘and mined/contract utilities,’ and I am not in favor of including that. Monger: Yeah, I—Stahoviak: Because I think on our other facilities, it’s everything that has to do with the mining operation that’s part of that disturbed acreage. Monger: John, do you have a comment on that regarding the monitoring of this and consistency? Eastman: Just a clarification, actually, Nancy, did you mean that entire last sentence, ‘Disturbance caused by initial…’ would go away, or just the ‘and mining concrete facilities? Stahoviak: No, just the change that was recommended by Lafarge would go away. Eastman: Okay. Stahoviak: Okay? Eastman: Yes, no, that’s no problem. Monger: Is that consistent with what we do with the rest of the pits? That the concrete—or the mine facility would be in addition to the disturbed acreage? Because you are pretty—I believe the Planning staff is pretty consistent in our application of this. And anything that doesn’t have grass or water on it is disturbed acreage. Eastman: What I’d comment on is our ratcheting down on the levels of allowable disturbance and our ability to track that using GPS equipment has only come on line in the last few years. We haven’t had a major new pit open while we’ve been able to really take a good handle on this. So the construction of the accel/decel lanes hasn’t been included. Monger: I’m not worried about that; I’m worried about---Eastman: Okay. Monger: --the comment about the mine facilities. Ellison: The mine facilities. Eastman: The mine facilities are included. I think if you eliminate Lafarge’s request to change, then it’s very clear to us, and consistent. Monger: Thank you. Condition 10 is alright? Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: Condition 11, is consistent with our past direction? Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: Condition 12? Page 04-25 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Stahoviak: Can go away. I think, you know, if the applicant wants to create some of, you know, over the first couple years of operation regarding fog and when it comes and how long it’s there, and what the timeframes are, some time come in and ask for an amendment to the permit, they always have the ability to do that. So I would just take out that whole condition. Monger: I believe that concurs with what I said earlier as well. Move on to the rest of the re- typed portion of Condition 13. I believe—Stahoviak: This is consistent with the letter we got, or does this need to be changed a little bit? Monger: John, can…Eastman: Sorry, repeat, I was talking to Caryn… Monger: Condition 13 regarding the FEMA and the CLOMAR/LOMAR—is that still consistent with the letter that we’ve received? Eastman: Absolutely. I rewrote it after discussing this condition with Kevin Doyle, and he made me aware that that letter was coming so, yes, as rewritten, it’s consistent with their letter and consistent with their policies. Stahoviak: Okay. And on the next one, on reclamation, there was a request by Lafarge to include, ‘within three months of SUP approval that they would submit to the DMG for acceptance the final reclamation plan? What was your original thought, John, on this? When should that be submitted? And, are we just talking about DMG, or do we already have the final reclamation plan? Eastman: No, on this one, there’s a couple changes, couple minor changes that we’ve requested. There’re a couple of note, they’re not necessarily minor, they’re very specific, including the dedication of water rights to the reclaimed lakes. It’s done with just a simple little note on the final reclamation plan. My thought is, it needs to go to DMG and be acknowledged as a final reclamation plan before we issue our Special Use Permit. So I hadn’t put a specific time period in there; that was the intent with that condition. Stahoviak: Okay. So you’re—it would be, ‘this amended reclamation plan shall be submitted to DMG for acceptance as the final reclamation plan prior—for this site, prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit.’ Monger: Well, I guess I’m still confused here. Are we asking for the—that the acknowledgement that it’s approved before we…? Eastman: Correct. What we want to make sure---Monger: That isn’t said right now, either; it says that shall be submitted to DMG for acceptance, but it doesn’t say they shall have accepted it. So I guess I’m asking what you really mean, here. Eastman: That was the intent, and you may want to clarify that language. Stahoviak: Alright, how about ‘for approval’? Approval’s a better word. Eastman: I think what you’re going for, Doug, and the intent is ‘–shall be accepted by the DMG as the final reclamation plan for this site prior to the issuance of the SUP.’ That’s what you’re aiming for. What we want to make sure is that they’ve got the bonding in place to cover the reclamation plan that we’ve approved before they start on that site. Stahoviak: Okay. So we’ll say—Monger: I’m going to say, ‘The amended reclamation plan shall be approved by DMG as the final reclamation plan for this site, prior to construction.’ Stahoviak: ‘--prior to issuance of the SUP.’ Monger: Okay, prior to issuing the SUP. Stahoviak: Right. Okay, Doug, I think we’re down to your recommended condition that will probably replace the Condition #3 that is right here. Monger: Well, are we going to do--was #2, alright? Ellison: I think that was alright, yes. Stahoviak: Yes, it’s okay with me; I’m sorry. Monger: Yeah, I presented a couple copies of this thing. My condition would read, “Prior to any sales, permittee shall acquire, conserve, and donate to a qualified land trust entity, a Page 04-26 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing conservation easement to protect further development on any contiguous 128 acres of land, located in areas as covered by the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan.” Stahoviak: So when you say ‘contiguous’, do you mean contiguous to this mined area? Monger: No, that the 128—Stahoviak-- or that it would have to be contiguous—all in one place? Monger: 128 acres was contiguous to itself. Stahoviak: Okay. Monger: So we didn’t get 20 here, 40 there, and 60 there. Stahoviak: And do we have any comments from staff regarding that proposed condition? Eastman: I have a question for clarification, Nancy. I think the intent is to say, on that 128 acres, that shall have no residential development. When you say, ‘to protect further development’ I can foresee, and I’m just trying to make sure we don’t get into a nit-picking session--if it’s something that’s got one house on it already, and they’re protecting it from additional development, you’re aiming for something that—you’re aiming for 128 acres with no residential development. Monger: Yes. Eastman: Okay. Monger: So I’ll just take out ‘to protect from development’ then. And, again, it’s going to have to qualify for a conservation easement. Eastman: I would suggest this, to make it clear—Monger: You’ve got it wordsmithing, roll it out here. Eastman: ‘--to protect from any residential development.’ Because there may be ag-related development that’s okay. Monger: Right. ‘—to protect from any residential development on any contiguous 128 acres.’ Merrill: Did you include in that the requirement that it be granted to a qualified conservation easement holder? Monger: Yeah, I had that in there. (To Caryn Fox) Did I give you a copy of this? Fox: No…’qualified…’ Monger: ‘—donate to a qualified land trust entity..’ Merrill: It might be better just to say, ‘qualified conservation easement holder.’ Monger: Everybody alright with that? Ellison: Yup. Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: We’re on to Landscaping, and we’re going to scratch the original three in reclamation, and what was there, then? Stahoviak: Right. Monger: And so we’re on to Landscaping and Visual Screening? Stahoviak: Yeah. I’m okay with it the way it has been changed. Monger: Condition 2? Stahoviak: I’m okay with it. Monger: Good; looks alright. Condition 3 should go away. Stahoviak: Yup. Monger: Condition 4 becomes Condition 3. Asphalt plant has been removed. So we move on to Air and Water Quality. Looks like Condition 1 is alright. Stahoviak: Well, the only thing I’m wondering, and I think I’ll bring it up right here, there’s several places we refer to the Army Corps of—by the way, right here it says, ‘the Army Crops of Engineers’. We don’t want to say that in our motion. We need to change that to ‘C-o-r’. But what I was wondering is, if somewhere we want to say something like—I’ve got it written down here somewhere—‘All conditions of the US Army Corps of Engineers’ permit related to this operation are hereby—or Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit—are hereby incorporated by reference in this Special Use Permit” so we make it abundantly clear that all of the conditions related to that wetlands permit, we also support and want to enforce. Eastman: Can I interject, Nancy? If you go back to General Conditions, Number 8, I was trying to cover that. If you want [TAPE #1 ends here. A few words are missing.] --left everything, including the 404 permit. If you want to just--I think--because we want—I was trying to incorporate all the conditions of the air pollution permits, of the 404 permits— Stahoviak: Right. Eastman: --everything. Page 04-27 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Stahoviak: Okay. Monger: I’m alright with the way it’s written. Stahoviak: That’s fine. Next one. Monger: Air and Water Quality, Number 2. Stahoviak: Yes, and I want to leave that at the 2,500 feet. Monger: Condition #3. Stahoviak: There is a request by Lafarge to make a slight change to this, which would be that they conduct ground water monitoring monthly for the year right at the--preceding the commencement of each mining phase, and then quarterly thereafter. I believe that that would probably be adequate. What do you think, John? Eastman: Camelletti pit is doing more monitoring wells than this site has proposed monthly. Depending on when you pick the quarters, you could miss some big changes. We are—Stahoviak: Okay. Eastman: --believe it or not, watching those on a month-to-month basis and trying to keep track of them. I would prefer monthly just because you know you’re getting the data, then. Monger: Well, I guess if we have the opportunity to let Planning staff or the Planning Administrator have the opportunity to decrease that to quarterly, based on need, I would concur with it that way. John, do you have any comments about that? I mean, if you guys find that it’s not a problem, and that we’re doing alright, that you would have—Caryn would have the ability to just decide to drop that requirement down to quarterly. Eastman: Yeah. I’m not sure what the basis of not a problem’s going to be. As much as anything, what helps us out is in future deliberations, it starts to give us good data on how these gravel pits are affecting ground water, and it does change on a month-to-month basis. Stahoviak: I say---Eastman: If you guys are okay with quarterly, I prefer you just say quarterly. I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference, you know, that big a difference one way or the other. Monger: Well, let’s leave it the way it is then. I believe Condition #4’s where we needed to have it? Stahoviak: Yeah, that one’s okay with me. Ellison: I’m okay with it. Stahoviak: Five and six are okay with me. Ellison: Yup. Stahoviak: I’m wondering if we need Condition #7 because of the way the condition related to the floodplain has been reworded. That’s Condition #13. Because it starts out saying, ‘Permittee shall pay all necessary County and federal approvals and permits for both mining and final reclamation related to alteration of the floodplain. Does that cover it? Or is the floodplain development permit different? I think it covers it, but I could be wrong. Fox: I think it covers it. Eastman: Yeah, I would concur, Nancy. I think that existing condition covers it. Stahoviak: Delete #7. Ellison: Okay. Monger: Condition 8? Stahoviak: That’s okay. Monger: We have the irrigation ditches; I believe the conditions 1 and 2 are alright. Stahoviak: Yes. Monger: The Noise. Stahoviak: That’s okay. Both of those are okay. The next one we need to find where we want to insert the condition that talks about limiting the total tons hauled out of the permit, the 460,000 per year. Monger: Where do we normally put that, John?

Page 04-28 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Eastman: I’d put that right at duration of phasing. You basically already have it in a backhanded way because if they have to comply with the APEN permit, they’re already limited. But I would probably throw it in right in Specific Conditions with Number 1 to make it clear. The other thing you have not discussed is how the conditions are going to be affecting Phase III. And that may go into Condition #1 as well, or somewhere in there. Stahoviak: How many conditions are affecting Phase III? Eastman: You said you want to take Phase III out. Stahoviak: Right. And I assume that we would do that as part of the motion. Eastman: Okay. Stahoviak: That to approve the final Special Use Permit for a gravel pit with the elimination of the Phase III in the Mining Plan. Monger: So I will—I’m going to make this motion, Nancy. Stahoviak: Okay. That’s good. Monger: I’m going to add that to #4 in this Specific Conditions, that approved uses shall include sales up to 460,000 tons, and then mining, crushing, and processing. Stahoviak: Okay. I’m just checking my notes for a minute to make sure we covered everything I had talked about. Oh, the other thing that was talked about a little bit was, kind of how the County plans to ensure compliance for the Special Use Permit. And I know one of the things that we did was put in here a condition that says, ‘A full performance review by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be conducted after five years of operation.’ But, John, do you want to explain just a little bit what Planning staff’s role is in monitoring on an annual basis all our gravel permits? Eastman: On an annual basis, Nancy, we’ve been going out and doing a GPS disturbance. We have not necessarily gotten all of the gravel pits in Routt County, but we have made a point of getting all the major ones in the Steamboat Springs area on an annual basis. Some of the more remote County-owned pits we’ve only done every couple of years because, frankly, they don’t change at all in a one-year span. We have discussed, in the past, with the proposed changes to the Zoning Resolution, the idea of doing something similar to the Division of Minerals and Geology and having the annual permit fees to help us offset the cost. The monitoring we’re doing is substantial; it takes a very substantial amount of staff time. And, like I say, we have discussed doing that on a comprehensive, County-wide basis, saying anybody who’s got a mining Special Use Permit’s going to be required to pay some level of annual fee, probably just tied to the level of disturbed acres. That may not be happening within the next six-to-nine months. My only other thought is, you may want to put something in there that says, costs associated with monitoring this permit may be charged--assessed against--to Lafarge. Monger: General Conditions or Specific Conditions? Stahoviak: What, Doug? But how can we implement that if we don’t have it as part of—it would seem to me, if our regulations--our fee structure changes in the future, then that would apply to all gravel permits. Ellison: Yes. Fox: We don’t need it in the permit. Ellison: No. Stahoviak: Yeah, I would be concerned about doing that. The other thing, John, is that any time you receive a call regarding any of our gravel permit operations, expressing a concern about the potential violation of conditions, how do you follow up on that? Eastman: Basically evaluate what the concern is about. Typically we immediately call the operator, try to establish what happened. Sometimes, in fact quite frequently with both coal Page 04-29 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing mines and gravel mines, the operator will say, ‘Yeah, that’s exactly what happened, and this is what we’ve done to rectify it. If it’s something where they have not rectified the situation, we go out and visit the site and follow up until such time as whatever non-compliance issue is rectified. And on the very odd occasion, and we have done this a couple of times, to both coal and gravel permits, if the operator does not bring the permitted—the operation into compliance with the permit, we then schedule it for a revocation hearing. Stahoviak: Okay. Thank you. So I feel that, with John giving that information, that what we have currently in this permit, is adequate at this point in time. We normally don’t schedule a ten-year permit for an interim review, such as we have in that one specific condition where there will be a full review in five years. I believe that’s adequate at this time with the annual reviews that Planning staff does internally, and also with the process we have set up to answer any complaints or concerns, which, you know, is another one of our standard conditions, that any complaints or concerns that arise from this operation may be cause for a review of the SUP at any time the Planning staff feels that would be necessary. So I think, looking through my notes, I think we’ve covered everything that I had on my list. Ellison: Okay. Do you have anything else, Doug? Monger: No, I don’t. I need to finish up this one, and I’ll be ready. Ellison: Okay. Monger: Do you have anything? Ellison: No. Monger: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the final Special Use Permit for a gravel pit, crusher, wash plant, shop, office trailer, and associated facilities. This approval is based on the findings of fact that the proposal as modified complies with the Routt County Zoning Resolution and the Routt County Master Plan. Approval is subject to the following conditions: General Conditions, 1, The operator shall comply with all applicable conditions of the Routt County Zoning Resolution. And by the way, Dee, I am going to refer, and I’m not going to read all of these, I’m going to refer to this memo provided to us by Planning staff. General Condition #2: the SUP is limited to uses and facilities as presented in the approved project plan with Phase III removed. Any additional uses or facilities must be applied for in a new or amended application. General Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, as presented. General Condition #9: Fuel, flammable materials, and hazardous materials shall be kept in safe areas. Any spills of fuels or hazardous materials shall be reported to the Routt County Planning Department within three days. General Condition #10: The permittee will work with CDOT to install truck entrance signs at appropriate locations both north and south of the pit on Highway 131, prior to any outside sales from the mine. Specific Conditions, Duration of Permit, Phasing, and Operations: Condition #1, as written. Condition #2: The second sentence will read, “The access improvements shall comply with the approved CDOT Access Permit.” Stahoviak: Doug, also we’re going to delete ‘fog mitigation system’ from the -- [unclear word, might be ‘permit.’]. Monger: Oh, I’m sorry, yes. Thank you. So the first sentence will read, The required Highway 131 access improvements and visual landscaping berms shall be completed prior to any outside sales from the mine.

Page 04-30 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Specific Condition #3, Importation of gravel materials is not allowed as part of this permit. Importation of inert fill and asphalt paving and concrete to be recycled is allowed. Condition #4, Approved uses include sales up to 460,000 tons, mining, crushing, processing, recycling, washing, and stockpiling of gravel, maintenance of equipment, shop, office trailer, crusher, and associated equipment. A sentence shall be added: Neither a concrete or asphalt plant is approved. Eastman: Doug, real quick clarification. Monger: Yeah. Eastman: 460,000 tons per year. Monger: Okay; thank you. Did you get that, Dee? Bolton: Yes, thank you. Monger: Condition 5: Any amendments to the Mined Land Reclamation Division permit must be approved by the Planning Administrator and may be cause for review of the SUP. Condition 6, Hours of operation shall not exceed the following: a, as written; b as written; c will read: Loading and hauling of materials from August 15th to May 31st shall be 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Loading and hauling of material June 1st through—let me keep track, here—Stahoviak: August 14th. Monger: August 14th shall be 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Saturdays. Stahoviak: That’s 9:00 a.m., right? Monger: Right. Did I say—Stahoviak: You said ‘p.m.’ Monger: I’m sorry. We’ll have a night haul. Condition e is removed; Condition f, as written; Condition g, as written; Condition h, as written; Condition i: hours of operation may be at the Board of County Commissioners’ discretion be amended to avoid conflicts with school buses. A new sentence shall be added: Lafarge shall work with the Planning Department to educate drivers of school conflict. Condition 7, as written; Condition 8, as written. Condition 9: A maximum of 28—of 25 acres within the permit limits shall be disturbed at any time. The rest of that condition, as written by the Planning Department. Condition 10, as written; Condition 11, as written; Condition 12 is removed; and Condition 13, as written, shall be Condition 12. That condition shall read: Permittee shall obtain all necessary County and Federal Emergency—I’m not going to read it; it’s as written there, Dee. Reclamation. That shall read: Permittee shall implement the amended reclamation plan in a manner concurrent with the phased mining plan to insure the maximum disturbed area is not exceeded. Final Reclamation Plan shall include measures to prevent the proliferation of non- native species as required in the Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit as approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This amended Reclamation Plan shall be approved by DMG as the final Reclamation Plan for this site prior to issuing the Special Use Permit. Reclamation Condition #2, as written; Condition #3 goes away. Oh, yes, Condition #3 will read--that’s the new one: Prior to any sales, permittee shall acquire, conserve, and donate to a qualified conservation easement holder a conservation easement to protect from any residential development a conservation easement on 128 acres of land, located in areas as covered by the Steamboat Springs Area Community Plan. Bolton: Doug, do you want ‘contiguous’ in there? Monger: Yes, contiguous will stay in there. Landscaping/Visual, as written in the packet. And I’m still making the motion, John, but I have a question that I missed here. The berms in the Reclamation Plan are removed, correct?

Page 04-31 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing Eastman: Correct. That was the one minor change on that last reclamation plan; a note that says berms are removed. Monger: Landscaping and Visual Screening, Conditions 1 and 2, as written; Condition 3 goes away; Condition 4 will be Condition 3. Asphalt plant goes away. Air and Water Quality, again, as Nancy pointed out, ‘Army Corps’ is not ‘Army Crops’, so would you fix that? Air and Quality [sic] Condition #2, as written; Condition 3, as written; Condition 4, 5, 6, as written. Condition 7 in Air and Water Quality goes away; Condition 8 becomes Condition #7. Irrigation Ditches: Conditions 1 and 2, as presented; Noise, Condition 1 and 2, as presented. That’s the end of my motion, Mr. Chairman. Stahoviak: Second. Ellison: There’s a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Monger: I have some discussion. I again thank the community, and I thank the applicants, and I thank the opposition for working with us on—I know that nobody got what they wanted. I hope that this is some of amenable solution works for the community as well as the applicant as well as the opposition. You can feel entrusted that we tried the hardest we could to do what was best for the community. Ellison: Any comments, Nancy? Stahoviak: No, I concur with what Doug said. I don’t think we need to carry it on any more. Ellison: Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Monger Aye. Stahoviak: Aye. Ellison: Aye. Motion carries. Monger: Thank you. Ellison: We’re adjourned.

Except where indicated as inaudible, and excluding repeated words and many interjections, I certify this to be a true and accurate transcription of the above-mentioned hearing.

______Diana Bolton, Clerk and Recorder

Page 04-32 May 20, 2005 Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes—Transcript of Lafarge West Hearing