HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.00 Staff Report and Exhibits PC 10.22.2025File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Planning Commission October 22, 2025 Glenn Hartmann – Director Community Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Substantial Modification
EXHIBIT NO EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION 1 Public Notice Information Form & Proof of Notice 2 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 3 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 4 Application 5 Staff Report 6 Public Comments 7 Referral Comments 8 Public Petitions – Updated 10-14-2025
9 Supplemental Application Materials – Letters from Colorado River Engineering dated October 8, 2025 and November 27, 2024 (updated January 9, 2025) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Page 1 of 6
Map of Public Notice Sign Locations
Page 2 of 6
Public Notice Sign #1 at main entrance driveway
Public Notice Sign #2 at intersection of CR 114 & CR 115
Page 3 of 6
Public Notice Sign #3 along CR 114 (community housing area)
Public Notice Sign #4 on Parcel No. 218733100152 facing ROW
Page 4 of 6
Public Notice Sign #5 at Ranch House Driveway
Public Notice Sign #6 at Landis Creek driveway
Page 5 of 6
Public Notice Sign #7 on southwest side of Parcel No. 218720100168 facing ROW
Public Notice Sign #8 BLM road access to property
Page 6 of 6
Public Notice Sign #9 on Parcel No. 218716100169
Public Notice Sign #10 on Parcel No. 218726200168
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
[def:$signername|printname|req|signer1] [def:$signersig|sig|req|signer1] [def:$notarysig|sig|req|notary] [def:$date|date|req|notary] [def:$state|state|req|notary] [def:$county|county|req|notary] [def:$disclosure|disclosure|req|notary] [def:$seal|seal|req|notary]State of Florida, County of Orange, ss:
I, Anjana Bhadoriya, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath
depose and say that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC,
duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Rifle
Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in
whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of
Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said
newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly
in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two
consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the
annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has
been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under
the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments
thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly
qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within
the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in
the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly
newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first
publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated Sep 18, 2025 in the issue of said newspaper.
That said newspaper with the annexed legal notice or
advertisement was regularly issued and circulated on the below
dates.
Publication Dates: Sep 18, 2025
Ad #: abyyvjXaHjbswruZeiRw
Customer: LANDWEST COLORADO
Notice Name: SVR PUD Amendment PC Hearing 10.22.2025
Total cost for publication: $122.76
[$signersig]
______________________________[$seal]
Agent
VERIFICATION
State of Florida
County of Orange
Signed or attested before me on this: [$date]
[$notarysig]
__________________________________________
Notary Public
[$disclosure]
SVR PUD Amendment PC Hearing 10.22.2025 | Page 1 of 2
Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof.
______________________________________________
09/18/2025
SVR PUD Amendment PC Hearing 10.22.2025 | Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Spring Valley Holdings, LLC, has applied to Garfield County Planning Commission, to
request a Substantial Amendment to the Spring Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD), located
on the subject properties located in Sections 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 Township 6
South, Range, 88 West of the 6th P.M., County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: Please See Exhibit A on the following Page.
Practical Description: Properties located approximately 5 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs at the
intersection of County Roads 115 and 114, known as Garfield County Assessor Parcel Nos. 218716100169,
218720100168, 218726200168, 218733100152.
Description of Request: The applicant is requesting to significantly update the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Plan and Map, as well as the Development Agreement and Phasing Plans associated with the PUD. The
proposed PUD amendment includes allowances for residential uses with 577 dwelling units (including 75
affordable units), a small central village with golf facilities, club house, fitness center, fire station, and
maintenance facilities. Other uses included in the PUD Guide allow for winter recreation facilities, a small
private ski area, community housing village, and public general store. The PUD Amendment also includes open
space and public trails. The file number for this request is PUAA-05-23-8967.
All persons affected by the proposed Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment are invited to appear before the
Planning Commission and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing,
then you are urged to state your views by letter or email addressed to GHartmann@GarfieldCountyco.gov and
PBerry@GarfieldCountyco.gov. The Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of
surrounding property owners and other affected parties in deciding whether to recommend approval, approval
with conditions or denial of the request. The application may be reviewed in the Community Development
Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Administration Building, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Community
Development Department at (970) 945-8212 if you would like to view the application in person or if there are
any questions regarding this notice. The application can be found at the Garfield County Community
Development Applications Under Review website and viewed directly at: https://records.garfield-
county.com/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=3996323&dbid=0&repo=GarfieldCounty
A Public Hearing on the application has been scheduled for 22nd day of October, 2025, at 6:00 P.M. in the
Ascent Building at the CMC Spring Valley Campus at 3000 County Road 114, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado, 81601.
Community Development Department
Garfield County
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL 1:
Lot P1, Lot OSP Parcel-A, Lot OSP Parcel-B, Lot OSR Parcel-A, and Lot OSR Parcel-B, Spring Valley Ranch
P.U.D. Phase 1, according to the Final Plat thereof recorded October 21, 2010 at Reception No. 793243, and
First Amended Plat thereof Recorded December 5, 2012 at Reception No. 828064
PARCEL 2:
Unplatted Parcel A according to the First Amended Plat, Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D., recorded December 5,
2012 at Reception No. 828064
Excepting the following parcel:
A parcel of land being the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 6 South Range
88 West, of the Sixth Principal meridian, said parcel being further described as follows:
Beginning at the West Quarter corner of said Section 15 being a 2-1/2 inch GLO Brass Cap found in place,
thence N 89°51'07" E 1323.59 feet along the North line of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said Section 15 to the northeast
corner of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said Section 15;
thence S 00°01'49" E 1540.50 feet along the East line of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said Section 15 to the Southeast
Corner of the NW1/4SW1/4;
thence S 89°58'25" W 1323.59 feet along the south line of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said Section 15 to the
southwest corner of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said section 15; whence the Southwest Corner of said Section 15
being a 2-1/2 inch GLO Brass Cap found in place bears S 00°01'49" E 1537.70 feet;
thence N 00°01'49" W 1537.70 feet along the west line of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said section 15 to the northwest
corner of the NW1/4SW1/4 of said section 15 being the POINT OF BEGINNING containing 46.76 acres more
or less.
PARCEL 3:
Unplatted Parcel B according to the First Amended Plat, Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D., recorded December 5,
2012 at Reception No. 828064
PARCEL 4:
Unplatted Parcel C according to the First Amended Plat, Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D., recorded December 5,
2012 At Reception No. 828064
PARCEL 5:
Thirty foot roadway easement from Hopkins Ranch, Ltd. to Spring Valley Holding USA Ltd. recorded
September 10, 1993 in Book 875 at Page 126 as Reception No. 452323 and re-recorded January 13, 1994 in
Book 889 at Page 681 as Reception No. 457969,
County of Garfield,
State of Colorado.
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
P
a
r
c
e
l
N
o
O
w
n
e
r
N
a
m
e
In
C
a
r
e
O
f
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
2
Ci
t
y
St
a
t
e
Z
i
p
C
o
d
e
R0
5
0
1
6
7
21
8
7
3
5
2
0
0
0
5
0
J
&
S
N
I
E
S
L
A
N
I
K
L
L
L
P
31
1
8
S
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
U
E
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
4
7
21
8
7
3
5
1
0
0
0
1
2
R
Y
A
N
S
W
E
E
N
E
Y
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
L
L
C
51
5
S
T
O
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R1
1
1
4
2
3
21
8
7
3
4
3
0
0
0
8
3
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
J
U
N
I
O
R
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
80
2
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
1
8
0
21
8
7
3
4
2
0
0
0
9
5
S
A
M
U
E
L
S
O
N
,
R
A
U
N
E
&
G
A
Y
L
E
L
PO
B
O
X
2
9
7
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
2
-
0
2
9
7
R0
5
0
0
9
4
21
8
7
3
4
2
0
0
0
4
9
V
E
L
T
U
S
,
L
O
I
S
A
66
5
1
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R1
1
1
7
8
0
21
8
7
3
3
4
0
0
1
0
7
B
E
R
K
E
L
E
Y
F
A
M
I
L
Y
,
L
L
L
P
13
0
2
W
A
U
G
H
D
R
I
V
E
#
6
8
4
H
O
U
S
T
O
N
TX
7
7
0
1
9
R0
8
4
6
5
9
21
8
7
3
3
3
0
0
1
5
4
P
L
U
S
L
A
Z
Y
K
L
L
C
39
6
1
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
8
4
5
6
5
21
8
7
3
3
3
0
0
1
5
3
B
E
R
K
E
L
E
Y
F
A
M
I
L
Y
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
P
A
R
T
N
E
R
S
H
I
P
13
0
2
W
A
U
G
H
D
R
I
V
E
#
6
8
4
H
O
U
S
T
O
N
TX
7
7
0
1
9
R0
0
8
9
0
6
21
8
7
3
3
1
0
0
1
5
2
S
P
R
I
N
G
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
S
L
L
C
26
0
0
S
O
A
K
H
U
R
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
#
1
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
1
1
2
21
8
7
3
2
2
0
0
0
9
6
B
R
Y
A
N
,
S
A
M
U
E
L
W
&
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
L
34
0
2
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
2
2
6
R
I
F
L
E
CO
8
1
6
5
0
R0
5
0
1
1
1
21
8
7
3
2
2
0
0
0
9
4
S
A
G
E
B
R
U
S
H
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
S
L
L
C
51
4
0
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
2
9
B
R
I
S
T
O
L
IN
4
6
5
0
7
R0
5
0
1
4
7
21
8
7
3
2
1
0
0
0
9
9
B
A
C
O
N
,
R
O
B
E
R
T
&
M
I
C
H
E
L
E
T
18
9
0
S
P
R
U
C
E
C
R
E
E
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
N
P
O
R
T
O
R
A
N
G
E
F
L
3
2
1
2
8
R0
0
6
9
2
6
21
8
7
3
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
E
L
I
B
A
R
R
A
N
C
H
L
L
C
31
5
4
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
2
8
5
21
8
7
2
9
3
0
0
1
3
3
B
R
Y
A
N
,
S
A
M
U
E
L
W
&
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
34
0
2
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
2
2
6
R
I
F
L
E
CO
8
1
6
5
0
R0
5
0
1
0
5
21
8
7
2
9
3
0
0
0
8
8
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
,
J
O
H
N
H
J
R
13
3
2
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
9
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
0
6
9
2
7
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
1
5
1
E
L
I
B
A
R
R
A
N
C
H
L
L
C
31
5
4
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
0
6
9
2
5
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
1
4
9
F
I
N
L
E
Y
,
S
T
E
V
E
M
I
C
H
A
E
L
&
H
E
A
T
H
E
R
R
E
N
E
E
22
8
7
5
S
O
M
E
D
A
Y
W
A
Y
BE
N
D
OR
9
7
7
0
1
R0
5
0
2
3
4
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
1
1
0
A
U
S
T
I
N
,
J
A
M
E
S
H
37
2
6
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
-
9
0
1
8
R0
5
0
2
3
3
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
1
0
9
H
E
L
M
I
C
H
,
L
I
N
D
A
L
&
D
O
N
A
L
D
B
40
0
6
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
4
0
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
0
7
9
F
R
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
,
S
T
E
P
H
E
N
C
&
S
C
O
T
T
R
&
L
Y
D
I
A
G
37
2
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
5
2
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
0
7
8
A
N
D
E
R
S
E
N
,
S
E
T
H
J
&
H
E
L
E
N
B
37
2
2
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
9
1
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
0
7
7
B
I
E
L
E
N
B
E
R
G
,
J
U
L
I
E
&
B
E
N
37
2
4
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
5
8
21
8
7
2
9
2
0
0
0
4
4
S
U
L
L
I
V
A
N
,
M
I
C
H
A
E
L
J
&
C
H
R
I
S
T
I
N
E
K
37
8
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
-
9
0
1
8
R0
5
0
0
8
4
21
8
7
2
9
1
0
0
0
4
3
L
A
G
I
G
L
I
A
,
D
O
N
N
A
L
Y
N
E
40
0
2
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
5
1
21
8
7
2
9
1
0
0
0
4
2
W
O
N
G
,
A
M
A
N
D
A
L
E
E
&
D
A
S
H
D
U
O
N
G
43
4
6
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
2
0
21
8
7
2
9
1
0
0
0
4
1
C
L
A
R
I
D
G
E
,
M
A
R
V
I
N
L
&
E
S
T
H
E
R
R
43
5
4
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
-
9
0
2
0
R0
5
0
0
3
9
21
8
7
2
9
1
0
0
0
4
0
W
R
O
B
L
E
W
S
K
I
,
S
T
A
N
I
S
L
A
W
43
5
1
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
2
8
3
21
8
7
2
8
3
0
0
1
2
6
L
A
N
D
A
B
A
R
R
A
G
A
N
,
J
O
S
E
M
A
N
U
E
L
15
5
9
F
I
R
E
T
H
O
R
N
D
R
I
V
E
RI
F
L
E
CO
8
1
6
5
0
9
3
5
0
R0
5
0
2
8
2
21
8
7
2
8
3
0
0
1
2
5
C
R
U
Z
G
A
M
B
O
A
,
F
A
V
I
O
L
A
D
E
L
C
A
R
M
E
N
&
E
S
T
R
A
D
A
T
O
R
R
E
S
,
H
E
R
N
A
N
D
O
&
S
T
E
V
E
N
50
5
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
01
R0
5
0
2
8
2
21
8
7
2
8
3
0
0
1
2
5
FA
V
I
O
L
A
D
E
L
C
A
R
M
E
N
&
E
S
T
R
A
D
A
C
R
U
Z
G
A
M
B
O
A
R0
5
0
2
8
1
21
8
7
2
8
3
0
0
1
2
4
K
E
L
L
E
R
,
D
E
B
R
A
A
N
N
&
J
O
H
N
P
50
0
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
-
9
0
2
4
R0
5
0
2
8
0
21
8
7
2
8
3
0
0
1
2
3
S
H
A
N
N
O
N
,
K
R
I
S
T
I
N
K
N
I
G
H
T
60
0
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
9
0
2
6
R0
5
0
2
5
4
21
8
7
2
8
2
0
0
1
2
2
W
I
L
L
,
G
R
E
G
O
R
Y
T
H
O
M
A
S
&
P
I
N
E
,
S
U
M
M
E
R
B
47
4
4
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
2
5
3
21
8
7
2
8
2
0
0
1
2
1
C
O
R
S
O
N
,
R
A
C
H
E
L
A
48
9
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
2
2
21
8
7
2
8
2
0
0
0
3
7
L
A
N
G
E
,
R
E
B
E
C
C
A
L
&
T
R
O
Y
A
43
4
8
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
-
9
0
2
0
R0
5
0
0
1
5
21
8
7
2
8
2
0
0
0
3
6
P
R
O
H
L
C
O
O
P
E
R
,
P
R
I
S
C
I
L
L
A
D
&
C
O
O
P
E
R
,
S
C
O
T
T
R
43
5
0
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
8
3
8
0
3
21
8
7
2
6
4
0
0
0
2
9
M
I
L
N
E
R
,
K
E
V
I
N
L
PO
B
O
X
3
0
2
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
2
-
0
3
0
2
R0
5
0
0
4
9
21
8
7
2
6
4
0
0
0
1
3
C
A
R
D
E
N
A
S
,
C
A
R
L
O
S
D
A
V
I
D
59
1
0
W
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
B
L
V
D
M
I
L
W
A
U
K
E
E
WI
5
3
2
0
8
R0
5
0
2
6
3
21
8
7
2
6
3
0
0
9
5
3
B
U
R
E
A
U
O
F
L
A
N
D
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
CO
L
O
R
A
D
O
R
I
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
I
E
L
D
O
F
F
I
C
E
2
3
0
0
R
I
V
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
I
L
T
CO
8
1
6
5
2
R0
8
3
2
9
6
21
8
7
2
6
2
0
0
1
6
8
S
P
R
I
N
G
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
S
L
L
C
DO
R
E
E
N
H
E
R
R
I
O
T
T
26
0
0
S
O
A
K
H
U
R
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
#
1
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
8
3
8
0
4
21
8
7
2
6
1
0
0
0
3
0
4
3
3
8
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
L
L
C
25
8
3
0
H
U
N
T
E
R
L
A
N
E
KA
T
Y
TX
7
7
4
9
4
R0
5
0
2
1
7
21
8
7
2
4
2
0
0
1
0
3
B
W
I
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
L
L
C
54
0
1
E
A
S
T
I
N
D
E
P
E
N
D
E
N
C
E
B
L
V
D
C
H
A
R
L
O
T
T
E
NC
2
8
2
1
2
R0
5
0
0
0
4
21
8
7
2
3
4
0
0
0
1
8
P
A
T
I
L
L
O
,
J
O
H
N
&
A
L
L
I
S
O
N
N
58
4
F
O
S
T
E
R
R
I
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
0
5
0
21
8
7
2
3
4
0
0
0
1
7
4
3
3
8
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
R
D
L
L
C
25
8
3
0
H
U
N
T
E
R
L
A
N
E
KA
T
Y
TX
7
7
4
9
4
R0
5
0
0
6
6
21
8
7
2
3
1
0
0
0
1
9
F
E
N
N
E
L
L
,
L
A
W
R
E
N
C
E
W
&
M
I
R
I
A
M
M
46
5
2
O
A
K
A
L
L
E
Y
KE
R
R
V
I
L
L
E
TX
7
8
0
2
8
R0
5
0
2
4
5
21
8
7
2
0
3
0
0
1
1
8
K
O
R
,
J
O
Y
T
R
U
S
T
&
M
E
Y
E
R
S
,
P
A
U
L
T
R
U
S
T
35
3
7
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
O
A
D
1
1
5
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
8
4
2
1
8
21
8
7
2
0
1
0
0
1
6
8
S
P
R
I
N
G
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
S
L
L
C
DO
R
E
E
N
H
E
R
R
I
O
T
T
26
0
0
S
O
A
K
H
U
R
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
#
1
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
5
0
2
6
1
21
8
7
1
9
1
0
0
9
5
1
B
U
R
E
A
U
O
F
L
A
N
D
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
CO
L
O
R
A
D
O
R
I
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
I
E
L
D
O
F
F
I
C
E
2
3
0
0
R
I
V
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
I
L
T
CO
8
1
6
5
2
R0
3
0
0
9
9
21
8
7
1
7
4
0
0
9
5
5
B
U
R
E
A
U
O
F
L
A
N
D
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
CO
L
O
R
A
D
O
R
I
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
I
E
L
D
O
F
F
I
C
E
2
3
0
0
R
I
V
E
R
F
R
O
N
T
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
I
L
T
CO
8
1
6
5
2
R0
8
4
2
1
9
21
8
7
1
6
1
0
0
1
6
9
S
P
R
I
N
G
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
S
L
L
C
DO
R
E
E
N
H
E
R
R
I
O
T
T
26
0
0
S
O
A
K
H
U
R
S
T
C
O
U
R
T
#
1
4
G
L
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
R0
3
0
0
0
2
21
8
7
1
5
3
0
0
0
6
3
F
A
R
N
U
M
F
A
M
I
L
Y
T
R
U
S
T
PO
B
O
X
9
5
4
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
2
R0
3
0
0
9
1
21
8
7
1
5
1
0
0
1
2
0
P
E
C
K
H
A
M
,
R
O
B
E
R
T
G
&
T
E
R
E
S
A
L
30
0
1
S
O
P
R
I
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
1
-
4
4
3
8
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
R0
3
0
0
9
0
21
8
7
1
5
1
0
0
1
1
9
P
E
C
K
H
A
M
,
R
O
B
E
R
T
R
A
Y
M
O
N
D
&
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
A
L
A
N
64
0
9
J
O
R
D
A
N
D
R
I
V
E
LO
V
E
L
A
N
D
CO
8
0
5
3
7
R0
3
0
0
8
9
21
8
7
1
4
2
0
0
1
1
4
R
U
D
D
,
S
U
S
A
N
J
R0
3
0
0
8
9
21
8
7
1
4
2
0
0
1
1
4
R
U
D
D
,
W
A
Y
N
E
01
3
2
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
BA
S
A
L
T
CO
8
1
6
2
1
R0
3
0
0
5
6
21
8
7
1
4
1
0
0
0
6
6
B
W
I
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
L
L
C
54
0
1
E
A
S
T
I
N
D
E
P
E
N
D
E
N
C
E
B
L
V
D
C
H
A
R
L
O
T
T
E
NC
2
8
2
1
2
R0
3
0
1
0
0
21
8
7
1
0
3
0
0
9
5
6
U
S
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
PO
B
O
X
9
4
8
GL
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
O
8
1
6
0
2
-
0
9
4
8
BU
R
E
A
U
O
F
L
A
N
D
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
76
0
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
GR
A
N
D
J
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
81
5
0
6
Exhibit
2
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
EFFECTIVE JULY 15, 2013
Full Version of Land Use and Development Code can be found here:
https://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/land-use-code/
Last Amended March 7, 2023
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2030 2020 UPDATE
GARFIELD COUNTY
Adopted: November 10, 2010
Last Amended: February 26, 2020
Full Version of the Comprehensive Plan is available here: https://www.garfield-county.com/community-
development/comprehensive-plan-2030/
Exhibit
3
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
1
Exhibit 5
Spring Valley Ranch PUD –
Substantial Modification
Type of Review Substantial PUD Amendment
Owners - Applicant Spring Valley Holdings, LLC
Applicant – Representatives
and Planners
Daniel Goldberg, Spring Valley Holdings, LLC Jody Edwards, Attorney, Klein Cote Edwards Citron LLC
Parcel Numbers 218716100169, 218720100168, 218726200168, 218733100152
Practical description A large area located approximately 5 miles southeast of the HWY 82 – I70 Intersection and about 4 miles on CR 115 from its intersection with Hwy 82.
Lot sizes Total – 5,909.264 Acres (based on Assessor Data) 218716100169 – 1,583.293 Acres 218720100168 – 2,893.589 Acres 218726200168 – 1,397.382 Acres 218733100152 – 35 Acres
Zoning PUD
Comprehensive Plan Residential Low Density
I. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in 1984. Over the last 40 years, the PUD has been extended and modified multiple times. This application is a substantial modification of the current approvals. It proposes broad changes to the PUD’s guide and plan, layout, uses, development agreement, and phasing plan.
II. SITE OVERVIEW The site is located east of Hwy 82 and South of the I-70 and Colorado River corridors. The application’s vicinity map is provided on the following page. The elevation tends to rise from 6,880 feet in the west to just over 9,400 feet in the east. For reference, the elevation of Hwy 82 between CR 115 and CR 114 ranges from 5,900 to 6,000 ft.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
2
Exhibit5
The properties are primarily undeveloped; and they present a wide range of natural features. Landis Creek and the Hopkin’s reservoirs are the most prominent sources of surface water. Cattle grazing operations have historically used the properties.Numerous ranch roads traverse the properties. A Ranch House, cabins, and agricultural structures are present, primarily on the lower parcels. The application breaks the properties into three areas that are useful for describing and understanding the area. These areas are mapped and described below.
Figure 1 Vicinity Map from Application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
3
Exhibit5
The Meadow area is the lowest in elevation and the southwestern corner of the properties. It is primarily dominated by scrub oak with meadows and pastures. The existing Ranch House, cabins, and various accessory structures are located here. This area is essentially the southwestern portion of Parcel # 218720100168 and Parcel 218733100152. It is divided from the
Highland area by County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road). Privately held parcels ranging from about 5 to 30 acres exist along the northern portion of this area. Larger, privately owned parcels are along its other boundaries.
Figure 3 Areas Described from Application
Figure 2 Image of a portion of Meadow area, from application.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
4
Exhibit5The Highland area extends northeast of CR 115. It has a similar mixture of vegetation as the Meadow area and
climbs in elevation from about 7,100 ft to about 7,800 ft in a mile through the middle of the area. Landis Creek bends through the northwestern third of the
Highland. This area shares the 5 to 30 acre sized neighbors as did the Meadowarea, but its other boundaries are primarily with the third area (Mountain) or shared with BLM parcels or large ranchland parcels. The application states that this area is largely invisible from CR 114 and CR 115. The Mountain area is the northeast portion of the property. It has a noticeable shift in vegetation towards forests with aspen trees and mixed conifers. Landis Creek begins in this area, and the area contains the Hopkins Reservoir. The reservoir has a typical storage capacity of 113 acre-feet and a surface area of 12 acres based on data from Colorado DWR Dam Safety. This dam was recently rebuilt. The Mountain area’s northern border is an extensive area adjacent to the White River National Forest. It is also adjacent to the Homestead Estates to the east, which is composed of parcels greater than 35 acres at this time.
III. PROPOSAL OVERVIEWBroadly speaking, the proposed PUD is area specific zoning associated with development agreements and phasing plans. For a site almost 6,000 acres in size, this is a significant zoning exercise. It needs to address physical access, public safety (especially fire related), water access, wastewater management, and its impacts on neighboring properties and the County as a whole.
Figure 4 An image of the Hopkin's Reservoir and a portion of the
Mountain Area, from the application
Figure 5 A view over a portion of the Highland Area, looking towards
Sunlight Mountain, from application.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
5
Exhibit5The application proposes zoning for up to 577 units, including 75 affordable housing units), golf courses with related uses (such as club house), ski area, mixed use for commercial uses, and dedicated open space. The PUD application includes reports on topics critical to such a development, including Wildfire Mitigation Report, Water Supply and Distribution Plan, Aquifer Study, Geologic Evaluation, and Safety, Drainage and Floodplain, and other documentation.The details of the proposal are discussed in the review sections of this staff report.
IV. HISTORY OF SPRING VALLEY RANCH APPROVALS
•Initial approvals for components of the current iteration of the SVR PUD Zoning date back
to the mid to late 2000’s. PUD approvals were documented by Resolution 2008-55 and later
Figure 6 A Comparison of the PUD in place and the Proposed PUD, from application.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
6
Exhibit 5
corrected by Resolution 2010-38.
• Resolution 2010-38 included detailed PUD Plans, PUD Guide and Zone District and PUD Map.
The plans included 577 units and golf course development.
• Between 2010 and 2012 documents were finalized including a Final Plat for Phase 1 (4 open
space lots and right-of-way), plat amendments relating to the right-of-way and Amended
Phasing Maps, Development Agreements and phasing plans were approved.
• In 2017 further amendments to the Phasing schedule and Development Agreement were
approved by Resolution 2017-31.
• Prior to the current submittals the Applicant prepared a request for a PUD Amendment to
the Phasing Plan, as a Minor Modification. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
heard the request and determined consistent with the Land Use and Development Code
(LUDC) that the amendment was a Substantial Modification and would require a new –
complete Application.
• During this time the Applicant also submitted for a Final Plat for Phase II. The application
was determined to not be complete and not technically complete items were not fully
addressed. The time limits to achieve completeness expired and the Application deemed
withdraw pursuant to the LUDC.
• In 2022 the Applicant obtained a grading permit to initiate construction of a portion of the
PUD Access Road, to demonstrate compliance with deadlines contained in the Development
Agreement.
• At the time of the current Application for the Substantial PUD Modification, technically a
complete new PUD Application, the current approvals were still effective and the
development was still technically in compliance with the PUD Phasing Plan.
V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The following is a list of the general provisions applicable to this application.
• Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 as amended
• Section 6-202 PUD Zoning
• Section 6-203 PUD Zoning Amendments
• Section 6-203(B)(1)(a) Process & Section 6-203(C) Review Criteria
• Table 6-201 Common Review Procedures and Required Notice
• Table 6-301 and Section 6-302 Application Submittal Requirements
• Applicable provisions of Article 7 Standards The review criteria from Section 6-202.C will be discussed below in the Staff Analysis Section.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
7
Exhibit5
SECTION 6-203Following a Preapplication, the Director determined that the proposed modifications significant to the phasing plans of the Spring Valley PUD, as well as alterations to the land uses within the district constituted a Substantial Modification based on the criteria of Section 6-203.
VI. PROCESS DETERMINATION AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSThe application is considered a new PUD application and required the following submittal requirements. Staff’s analysis in this report is not based on the alterations to the existing PUD but treats this as a new proposal. The analysis of the submittal requirements and review criteria is in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTSThe following are the general submittal requirements for PUD Applications, including substantial modifications. Section 4-203.B General Application Materials – Section 4-203.C Vicinity Map – Section 4-203.D Site Plan - Section 4-203.G Impact Analysis – Including Wildlife Report - Section 4-203.H Rezoning Justification
Report - Section 4-203.J Development Agreement – Section 4-203.L Traffic Study – Section 4-203.O Floodplain Analysis – Section 6-302.A PUD Plan - Section 6-302.B Amendment Justification Report - Additional Submittal RequirementsDue to the complexity of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment, the following submittal items were required as well.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
8
Exhibit5Section 4-203.K Improvements Agreement – Section 4-203.M Water Supply and Distribution Plan - Section 4-203.N Wastewater Management –
VII. COMMENTS
REFERRAL AGENCIES Due to the complexity of this application, extensive referral comments were requested and received. Several referral agencies, such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife, provided multiple letters that are included in the packet. Due to the complexity, importance, and length of the received comments, staff will not summarize them here but recommend they be reviewed individually.
PUBLIC COMMENTSA significant number of public comments have been received and are included in the packet for the Planning Commission’s consideration.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS
CODE ANALYSISThe following is staff’s analysis of the application’s submittals and its compliance with the Land Use and Development Code’s standards. It includes a discussion of compliance with the comprehensive plan.
PUD GUIDE The application’s PUD Guide breaks the area down into 8 Planning
Areas with broad descriptions of the anticipated uses. The 8 Planning areas are described in the PUD Guide and summarized below. They are mapped on the PUD Map, a copy of which is provided below.
•Planning Area A -This area is
200 acres in size and includes
Figure 7 Summary Table from Application's PUD Guide
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
9
Exhibit5
the existing Ranch House. It is planned for extremely low density and agricultural uses.
Portions of this area will have habitat improvements and season closures as part of the
wildlife mitigation plan.
•Planning Area B –This 758-acre area will primarily be used for open space, included public
recreation trails and related amenities. This area will also have areas with habitat
improvements and season closures
•Planning Area C –This area is about 166 acres in size and is intended for the Community
Housing District, trails, and amenities. A total of 75 dwelling units are currently planned.
•Planning Area D –This planning area is the geographic and planning heart of the PUD and
is intended for a broad range of uses. This includes the 2 golf courses, fire station, significant
portion of residential uses, Mixed-Use District, accessory uses, and open space
•Planning Area E –This area is intended for significant residential uses as well as a smaller
mixed-use district. Trails and water storage are also envisioned in this planning area.
•Planning Area F –This area is slated for larger lot residential uses and open space. It may
also provide ski access to proposed ski areas in the neighboring Planning Area G.
•Planning Area G –Approximately 1,323 Acres, this area is planned for a wide range of uses
including both residential and mixed-use districts. This area is also planned for skiing and
snowmaking.
Figure 8 From the Impact Analysis of the Application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
10
Exhibit 5
• Planning Area H- The northwestern 903 acres, this area will have a significant portion of
open space with large lot residential districts. Smaller mixed-use districts supporting the
community’s amenities are also expected. Portions of this area will have seasonal closures. The PUD Guide also includes 9 Zoning Districts and 2 Overlay Districts. The Pasture, Mountain, Ranch, and Estate residential zone districts differ primarily in their dimensional requirements. They are all intended for single-family detached dwellings with allowed accessory and open space uses. The Community Housing District is intended to meet the Article 8 Inclusionary Zoning requirements of the LUDC, and it allows for a wider array of housing types, including duplex and multi-unit dwellings (these are also allowed in the Mixed-Use Zone District). The Mixed-Use District would provide for a mixture of commercial and residential uses. It would also provide for a golf club house and similar uses. The last three zone districts are all related to open space. Open Space Golf District is intended to provide space for an 18-hole course, a short course, and a wide variety of accessory uses necessary for golf courses. Open Space Recreation provides area for active and passive recreation, ranging from trails and trailheads to winter recreation uses. Open Space Limited is intended for areas being reserved for Recreation may include trails for non-mechanized uses. Maintenance in these areas would be allowed. The overlay districts are designed to provide additional regulatory provisions on top of the eventual zoning districts. The Wildlife Habitat Reserves will include a minimum of 1,320 acres through Planning Areas A, B, G, and H. These areas will be subject to seasonal closures to mitigate impacts on wildlife, especially elk populations. The Public Access Areas overlay will include a minimum of 450 acres for public trails and trailheads, including parking areas. Seasonal closures may apply to this overlay area also. The PUD’s guide also includes a use table as well as development standards. Several uses, such as the Industrial uses should require some level of additional standards or review, since the temporary use may extend up to 5 years according to the Guide.
This area intentionally left blank
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
11
Exhibit5
Figure 9 Zone District Dimensions, from PUD Guide
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
12
Exhibit5
Figure 10 PUD Guide Map from application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
13
Exhibit5
Figure 11 PUD Zone District Map, from application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
14
Exhibit 5
PHASING PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Development agreement includes a number of key provisions ranging from vested rights to phasing. Review in conjunction with the Assistant County Attorney, Kelly Cave will be required to address any purely legal topics in the Development Agreement. Key elements of the submittals are noted as follows:
• Initial submittals included a Dwelling Unit Phasing Plan and Off-Site Improvements Phasing
Plan.
• Staff review of the initial submittals noted a number of key concerns including:
o The lack of details and specificity in the plans.
o Maximum flexibility was retained for the developer with phases developed in any order and
the ability to divide them into subphases.
o The lack of zoning designations further complicated phasing.
o Provisions were included that specified that there would be no requirement to develop the
approved dwelling units listed in the phases/order shown, with no deadline to either
commence or complete construction of phases.
• The proposals were deemed to not meet the intent of the LUDC, PUD Sections including
Section 6-302 that requires the PUD Plans to include “Phasing and timing for the proposed
development including the start and completion”.
• The Applicant has prepared and submitted an extensive revision to the Phasing Plans
included as Exhibit 2 of the Development Agreement. The revisions include specific timing
for the start and completion of each Development Phase and for 5 Phases of Of-Site
Improvements (road improvements).
• Other elements of the proposed Agreement have remained largely unchanged. The following staff analysis addresses the revised Phasing Plan and proposed Development Agreement:
• The size, scale and duration of the project raises numerous practical concerns associated
with phasing in addition to being part of the basis for the Applicant’s request for an extended
vested right period of 25 years.
• Ongoing concerns regarding potential impacts of the development including traffic/roads,
aquifer/water, wildlife sustainability, wildfire trends and increasing risks warrant a more
conservative approach to long term phasing.
• A phasing plan and anticipated development schedule extending over more than 25 years
needs to be able to address changing conditions and evolving impacts from the development.
One only needs to consider the changing conditions within the Roaring Fork Valley since the
original PUD approvals 20+ years ago to acknowledge this real concern.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
15
Exhibit 5
• Many of the provisions in the Development Agreement are designed to manage the risks to
the Developer associated with such a large-scale development. These are not always in the
best interest of managing risk accruing to the public and/or neighboring property owners.
• Concepts for limited approvals and/or restricted development phasing plans to reduce and
limit initial phases in size and duration may function to address some of the more significant
development impacts. This would allow future assessment of critical impacts, identification
of needs for additional mitigation, and development of additional assessment tools such as
a Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program and additional traffic
modelling/counts. However, this may require significant modifications to the Application
such that a withdrawal and resubmittal would likely be appropriate.
• Requiring a trigger for a future PUD Amendment could also require completion of updated
studies on the actual impacts of the development and in particular results from the
Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Plan. An Amended PUD Plan requirement/review
could provide a process whereby the County could require updated mitigation and as
appropriate restrict/limit future development based on the updated studies and data on
impacts of the development.
• Staff anticipates extensive revisions to the Development Agreement including a number of
vested rights provisions and PUD Plan elements would be necessary to implement the above
type of phasing and Amended PUD requirements.
• The Updated Off-Site Improvements Phasing Plan is a very significant improvement and
provides needed details and specificity. The plan could continue to function with a restricted
phasing plan as early phases align well with Phases A, B, and C of the Off-Site Improvements
Plan.
• The submittals including the PUD Guide include details on how the Off-Site Improvement
Phasing will be implemented including CDOT Permits defining improvements at the Hwy. 82
and County Road 114 intersection and Section 7.2 of the PUD Guide providing Standards for
Off-Site County Road improvements.
• Comments from the County Road and Bridge Department has provided input on
improvement to CR 114 and 115 that should be considered for inclusion during the first
phase of development/construction. The recommendations regarding CR 115 including
potential limitation to a one-way configuration would require additional
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
16
Exhibit5
review/assessment.
•The Off-Site Improvements Plan, through the inclusion of additional footnotes, needs to
Figure 12 Phasing Plan Table, from Application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
17
Exhibit 5
address the potential for other improvements to the County Road, that may be identified at
the time of Preliminary Plan/Plat review including the potential for widening, additional
shoulders, turn lanes, guard rails, drainage improvements, acquisition of right-of-way and
mitigation for construction traffic impacts over the life of the project.
• The Development Agreement should include provisions associated with the updating and
operational provisions of the Landis Creek Metro District. The status of the district and
potential required updates to the District Plans should be addressed by the Applicant as part
of the PUD. Physical capacity of the district to provide services would need to be
demonstrated as part of each phase and future subdivision/preliminary plan reviews.
ARTICLE 7 STANDARDS
Section 7-101 Zone District Use Regulations – The proposed PUD guide and map will serve as the zone districts on the subject parcels.
Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and IGA’s – Conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan is one of the most significant Review Criteria for PUD Applications. The Applicant’s submittals in the Narrative Section provide detailed responses to a number of Comprehensive Plan provisions, policies and strategies. For a development project of the size and scale of Spring Valley Ranch there are a wide range of Comprehensive Plan provisions that may conflict with and/or support the development proposal. The staff analysis below does not attempt to restate the Applicant’s positions but rather provide some of the most significant and relevant key provisions of the plan for the Commission’s consideration regarding conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. (excerpts from the Plan are shown in Bold Italics) Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use
Sub-Section 1, Growth in 3 Mile Areas of Influence, Policies 1 and 2: Encouraging coordination of planning with adjacent municipalities and mitigation for impacts on those communities is key component of this section. Strategies in these sections outline a number of different concerns including economic impacts, environmental impacts and traffic impacts further indicating “Projects should not have unreasonable traffic impacts on local roads….”
Sub-Section 2, Growth in Unincorporated Communities: This Section notes the existence of several such communities and provides policies and strategies for expansion of said communities or new communities. The plan indicates that “New unincorporated communities in Garfield County are “discouraged”. While the proposal
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
18
Exhibit 5 outlines consistency with some strategies, several potential concerns/lack of conformance are noted below: Strategy ii: The status of the Landis Creek Special District proposed to serve the development. Strategy iii: Reliance on private security to serve the development. Strategy vii: The lack of any realistic connection to RFTA Transit Services.
Sub-Sections 3 and 4 Growth in Designated Centers and Growth of New Major Residential
Subdivisions: The proposed development while being previously zoned PUD is not a designated center such as a Village Center, or Employment Center on the Future Land Use Map. This section notes the potential for new or expanded centers that may be considered as Comprehensive Plan Amendments. New Major Subdivisions are noted to provide their own internal services and maintenance and to be more self-sufficient. The section provides Strategies for said subdivisions. While the development addresses a number of strategies, Section 4, Policy 1, Strategies include provision of Safe, Reliable Access and transit opportunities and “If outside of an UGA (Urban Growth Area), should be served by transit and maintain the community character of surrounding areas”,
Sub-Section 5 Change in Residential Development Densities: A number of clarifications to the density recommendations for future land use designations are provided in this section including the following statement: “For densities that encompass a range, the Maximum density can be achieved through a combined process of land conservation and clustering …. in coordination with the conservation framework lands and or other significant public benefits.” The proposed development is essentially at the maximum density (10.2 acres/dwelling unit) within the Residential Low Designation that has a 10 acres/dwelling unit standard. While portions of the proposed PUD Plan demonstrate clustering concepts and a significant upgrade from other development options (i.e. 35 acre exempt subdivisions – not subject to County Review) the need for additional clustering is outlined throughout the Staff Report including in the PUD Plan section of the Staff Analysis and is necessary to fully conform with the Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies.
Section 1, Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination
Policy 6: The County will continue to look for creative ways to address regional issues and
support projects within or adjacent to municipalities that transcend political boundaries
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
19
Exhibit 5
and those projects that provide services for all county residents including those in
unincorporated areas. The private nature of the project provides limited options to provide services and/or benefits for all county residents and/or to address regional issues and the project location is not adjacent to any municipalities. The PUD includes public trail access/parking and a Real Estate Transfer Assessment intended to mitigate for wildlife impacts and other regional needs/concerns based on management by a local non-profit. Comprehensive Plan Section 2, Housing
Policy 1: Ensure that current land use planning objectives promote affordable housing.
Policy 2: Encourage affordable workforce housing to be located near regional centers.
Policy 2 Strategy i. Incentivize the development of workforce housing in areas that are
adjacent to or in close proximity to:
• Incorporated Garfield County
• Employment centers
• Bus stops
• Key amenities such as grocery stores, schools, recreation facilities
• Central water/wastewater
Policy 4: Encourage local governments to accommodate the majority of their workforce
housing needs and to contribute to improving regional jobs-to-workforce attainable
housing imbalances. The Application proposes on-site employee housing for development employees along with additional housing units as required by the County Affordable Housing Regulations of the LUDC. However, it does not demonstrate general conformance with the first four bullets above regarding location of workforce housing. Section 3, Transportation
Policy 1: Ensure that county roads are constructed and maintained on a safe, and fiscally
sustainable basis.
Policy 3 Strategy ii: Develop area plans or an overlay for development in the Highway 82
corridor. Any options should address Access Permit requirements and improvements.
Policy 3 Strategy iii: Explore mechanism for the county to address increased traffic from
new developments.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
20
Exhibit 5
Policy 3 Strategy iv: Work with CDOT to help address traffic congestion on SH-82
Policy 3 Strategy v: Work with CDOT to help prioritize intersection updates within the
county. The Application Off-Site Improvements Phasing Plan including improvements to CDOT Intersections and County Road 114 to help address traffic congestion. The projects impact on County Roads and intersections on Hwy. 82 is well documented in the Applicant’s Traffic Studies and updates. Level of service issues and intersection queuing lengths call into question the ability of the project to conform with the Comprehensive Plan concerns for ensuring a safe and sustainable roadway system and mitigate for increased traffic. Section 4 Economics, Employment, Tourism
Policy 2: The county recognizes that the tourism industry is an important part of the
regional economy and the county recognizes that the tourism industry is enhanced by: (1)
open space and scenic vistas; (2) public trails and other recreational opportunities; (3)
public access to public lands; (4) a healthy environment and habitats for hunting and
fishing; (5) green belts and open area between communities; (6) clean air and water; and
(7) local food and local produce.
Policy 2 Strategy ii: Evaluate the potential impact of proposed new or expanded economic
development opportunities upon the overall quality of the existing community. The private nature of the proposed PUD limits its role as part of the overall local tourism economy. Public trails access is an important public benefit of the PUD. The Applicant’s fiscal impact analysis outlines major overall economic benefits, based on construction industry, real estate transfer assessments, and property tax revenues. Impacts on scenic vistas, access to public lands, and impacts on habitats for hunting are noted as areas of concern. Section 5 Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Policy 1: Where appropriate, new residential development should provide recreation
opportunities for residents that are appropriate to the density and type of development or
that contributes land and/or funding to county-wide trail and recreation system. Large
developments should provide recreational/transportation facilities internal to the
development and connections to external recreational/transportation facilities as
appropriate.
Policy 1 Strategy ii: Open space and recreation areas approved in subdivisions and PUD’s
must include provisions for maintenance in perpetuity. The PUD proposals include significant recreational opportunities including trails for
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
21
Exhibit 5 hiking/biking, golf courses and skiing areas. Connections to external recreational and transportation facilities are however limited with the exception of the potential for mountain biking trail connections. The PUD plan includes a significant amount of open space and wildlife protection overlay areas. Section 6 Agriculture
Policy 1: Ensure that current land use planning objectives protect, support, and strengthen
both new and existing agricultural uses. The PUD includes zoning to maintain the majority of existing agricultural pasture areas on the lower valley floor “Meadow” section of the PUD. Section 7 Water and Sewer
Vision: “…Environmentally sound services include consideration of sustainability, impacts
on habitats and riparian ecosystems, and long-term resilience to weather variability and
drought”
Policy 2: Development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/or
sewer systems are required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally
sound water and waste water disposal facilities can be provided.
Policy 3: Require new development to mitigate impacts on existing water/sewer systems.
Policy 5: Encourage planning for water conservation and drought conditions.
Policy 6: Encourage a holistic approach to address protection of the county’s water
resources and impacts from new development.
Policy 6 Strategy iv: Through the development review process require irrigation water
Management Plan for major developments as appropriate, to continue to ensure the
sustainability of agricultural resources.
Policy 6 Strategy v: Support Integrated Water Management Plans including strategies to
reduce water use, increase water recycling and efficiency, and promote alternative water
sources. Work to expand the area of the county covered by watershed master plans and
Integrated Water Management Plans and work to implement strategies recommended by
said plans. Elements of the PUD connect with several of the above Policies, however the extent of water demands associated with key components of the PUD as submitted, including golf course and ski area development and the scale of housing proposed, call into question the PUD’s conformance with the Comprehensive Plans strategies including the sustainability, planning for drought conditions, holistic water management and integrated water managements strategies.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
22
Exhibit 5 Section 8 Natural Resources, Habitat and Wildlife
Vision: “Ensure that natural, scenic, ecological , and critical wildlife habitat resources are
protected and/or impacts mitigated….Direct incompatible development away from
ecologically sensitive areas…..”
Policy 1 Strategy ii: Encourage higher intensity development away from critical wildlife
habitat areas and migration corridors as identified Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s High
Priority Habitat mapping layers, ….
Policy 2: Avoid disturbance to wildlife habitat; where disturbance cannot be avoided,
require development to fully address and mitigate potential negative impacts. The project’s impacts on wildlife including elk production areas are a major concern and reflected in CPW’s referral comments. As submitted the PUD does not adequately reflect conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Strategies and the need to avoid disturbance to wildlife habitat. Section 10 Renewable Energy
Policy 3: Ensure that renewable energy activities mitigate effects on the natural
environment, including air quality , water quality, wildlife habitat and visual quality. The PUD location on south facing slopes offers significant opportunities for solar energy but may come with potential impacts on visual quality. Limitations to roof top installations and glare minimization are elements that can be considered.
Comprehensive Plan – Staff Summary As noted in the above sections and excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan, Staff’s analysis is that the Application is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan in particular in the following areas:
• Specific language discouraging new unincorporated communities.
• Maximum Density per the Future Land Use Designation
• Need for additional clustering of development.
• Location of Affordable Housing.
• Wildlife Habitat Impacts.
• Lack of Transit connections and location away from Transit Services
• Traffic Impacts on County Roads and Highway 82
• Water Demands including sustainability.
Section 7-103 Compatibility – The proposal is in an area predominantly consisting of unplatted parcels greater than 35 acres.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
23
Exhibit 5 The map below shows parcel lines near the proposed PUD with neighboring, subdivisions overlaying the parcel lines. Both the Homestead Estates and High Aspen Ranch Subdivisions were exempt from subdivision review because they consist of parcels larger than 35 acres. Elk Springs is by far the largest reviewed subdivision in the area. Lake Springs Ranch is another adjacent subdivision/PUD that has platted, and then vacated, its first two filings with a significant amount of density in the remaining portion of the development. Several smaller subdivisions, such as the Overview and Christeleit Subdivisions, exist with lots ranging from 2-10 acres, however they number less than 20 total lots. Other parcels less than 35 acres in size do exist in the area. The areas outside of PUDs are zoned either Rural or Public Lands. The Elk Springs PUD, has minimum lot sizes for single family homes ranging from 7,500 sq feet (multifamily designation) to 35 acres (Rural Residential). It also has some limited, higher density multifamily uses allowed, such as townhomes, mostly in the vicinity of the CMC campus. The area is primarily low-density development. The Colorado Mountain College Campus has institutional uses including student housing with some multifamily residential uses associated with that area. The proposed SVR PUD proposes a range of small lot size residential uses intermixed with some commercial uses, extensive recreation uses, and open space. The recreation uses include golf courses, trails, and ski lifts, which will be largely new uses in this area. The predominate uses in the immediate periphery of the PUD are single family homes or open space. While the most intense uses are internal to the PUD area, peripheral areas will introduce denser residential and some commercial uses into the area. The PUD as submitted including the introduction of higher density residential elements, the overall density of the PUD, inclusion of commercial recreational activities (golf courses, and ski area), along with some limited supporting commercial does not reflect compatibility with the character of the surrounding community/uses.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
24
Exhibit5
Section 7-104 Source of Water –The following review addresses both this section and Section 7-105 as it pertains to water. The Application includes extensive analyses of water supply and adequacy for the development including legal and physical water supplies. Water supply for the development is proposed to be provided through the Landis Creek Metro District which will operate and manage the central water system. The system will use a series of wells and storage tanks. The following summary outlines the studies, review, and referral comments that were considered as part of the Staff Review.
Figure 13 Subdivisions near Proposed Development.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
25
Exhibit 5 • The County has utilized an outside Consulting Engineer for an independent assessment of water issues, Matrix Engineering. • The original submissions included narrative descriptions of the water supply plan and a Water Supply and Distribution Plan • The applicant provided an initial and supplemental study of aquifer sustainability prepared by their Engineer, Colorado River Engineering. • A most recent supplemental letter from Colorado River Engineering was submitted on October 8th . • The Division of Water Resources has provided comments and assessment of legal water issues including well permitting and augmentation plans. • The Applicant has prepared responses to the initial referral comments addressing specific issues and concerns. Key issues related to the proposed water supply are noted below:
• While technical calculations have been provided and supplemental analysis of the aquifer
have been submitted, concerns remain regarding its long-term sustainability and the
potential to mine the aquifer for water, in particular during high demand periods. These
concerns are reflected in the County’s Consulting Engineers comments.
• Difficulty in understanding the underlying geology of the aquifer has been noted. Additional
study by a Geohydrologist or similar profession has been recommended to better understand
the movement of water and aquifer leakage to the Roaring Fork River.
• Assumptions for peak water demand and pumping rates for wells need to be better detailed.
24/7 and 365 day pumping assumptions have been called into question by the County’s
consulting engineers. Documentation of well production, draw down and recovery needs to
be further assessed with the potential need for additional longer term pump testing. Draw
down between 20 and 340 ft. was reported in the well pump test and may not be sustainable
in the long term at the proposed pumping rates.
• Irrigation demands and in particular the scale of golf course demand for irrigation water in
the range of 750,000 gallons to 1,000,000 gallons a day is of concern.
• Adequacy of water storage was noted, including the realistic need for additional storage for
such a large remote development to address potential for a fire, major leak or mechanism
failure. The Applicant responded to this by proposing additional storage.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
26
Exhibit5
•An emergency response plan needs to be developed for the potable water supply and can be
addressed as part of a Preliminary Plan/Plat application once additional technical
infrastructure details have been engineered.
•Additional details on the Landis Creek Metropolitan Districts operation of the Water System
would be required at the time of Preliminary Plan/Plat Applications.
•Documentation that all wells have been properly permitted by the Division of Water
Resources and that augmentation plans are or will be updated to address all proposed water
uses including snowmaking as noted in the Divisions Referral Comments.
Figure 14 Cross Section showing Spring Valley Aquifer and related Geology, from Application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
27
Exhibit5The scale of the development as submitted and significance of the PUD in terms of density and proposed uses warrants additional study and/or provision of extensive conditions of approvalregarding the physical supply of water. This should include a Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Program that tracks SVR wells and other wells utilizing the Spring Valley Aquifer.
APPLICANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL WATER ANALYSES –DATED 10/8/25The Applicant has provided a detailed assessment of initial staff analysis on water issues, prepared by Colorado River Engineering including responses to the County’s consulting engineer on water supply/aquifer issues, Matrix Engineering. The details of the Applicant’s letter warrant some additional Staff responses and clarifications as noted below:
Figure 15 Well Production Rate Map, from Application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
28
Exhibit 5
• Long term sustainability of the water supply for the PUD and the potential for mining the aquifer continues to be a concern of Staff. As noted in the Applicant’s letter current updates to the aquifer study reflect downward trends in recharge to the aquifer, infiltration and precipitation.
• Staff disagrees with the assertion that Matrix and Staff should not be asking questions regarding impacts on other water users, as the LUDC and Comprehensive Plan support the assessment of impacts and compatibility along with supporting holistic and comprehensive planning for water management and sustainability.
• Staff continues to support a Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Plan and acknowledge that as the letter states, some of the key questions raised by Matrix could only be answered after several years of baseline data and sustained pumping data. The Applicant’s letter indicates that a Ground Water Monitoring Plan has been prepared by Colorado River Engineering.
• Well draw down and pumping assumptions continue to be a concern along with the scale of water demands for the golf course development.
• Technical issues associated with water storage and well permitting have been addressed by the letter.
• Staff’s position is that additional analysis is still necessary to confirm compliance with LUDC Section 7-104, that the application provides for an adequate, reliable, physical, and long-term water supply.
This area intentionally left blank
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
29
Exhibit5
Section 7 -105 Adequate Central Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems Water Supply is addressed under Section 7-104.The Spring Valley Sanitation District will provide wastewater services. The development was part of a Pre-Inclusion and Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement (PDA). A will serve letter from the district indicated adequate service is available. Some conditions found in the letter and PDA must be
meet/maintained. Further engineering for wastewater would be required at preliminary plan. Figure 16 Chart from Application showing Well Drawn Down during Pump Test
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
30
Exhibit5
Figure 17 Well Locations, both inside and outside of the proposed development, from application.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
31
Exhibit5
Section 7-106 Public Utilities Will serve letters from Holy Cross Energy, Black Hills Energy, and Century Link/Lumen indicated adequate service was available for electricity, gas, and telecommunications. Further details of these services would have to be addressed as part of preliminary plans, including detailed engineering.
Section 7-107 Access and Roadways There are two points of access to the proposal, Future West Access off of Cr 115 (Red Canyon Road) and the Future East Access off of CR 114 (CMC Road, also referred to as Spring Valley Road). The East Access will serve both the main development and the worker housing in Planning Area C. The Spring Valley Ranch PUD has a history of commitments to off-site traffic improvements based on existing conditions/capacity of County Roads, significant traffic volume increases associated with the development, and CDOT triggers for access permitting and upgrades at the County Road 114 and Highway 82 intersection. The Applicant’s traffic study addressed 7 intersections that will be impacted by the development. Staff analysis of traffic impacts
Figure 18 Excerpt from Figure 2 from the Application's Traffic Impact Study
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
32
Exhibit5included the following:•Initial Traffic Studies contained in the submittals completed by McDowell Traffic Engineers.•Supplemental Traffic assessment/update provided by the Applicant completed by Fox Tuttle Traffic Engineers (dated 12/2/2024).•Narrative responses to referral comments provided by the Applicant.•The County utilized our consulting engineers, Dan Cokely, with SGM and Chris Hale with Mountain Cross Engineering. •Referral comments and subsequent in person meetings with Brian Killian, CDOT•Referral comments and subsequent in person meetings with Dale Stephens, then Interim Garfield County Road and Bridge Director.Staff Analysis on key issues is outlined below:
•An update to the initial Traffic Study included both scenarios of allocating traffic to County
Road 115 and modelling traffic if County Road 115 is not used. There was no significant
difference identified for traffic/roadway performance and impacts.
Figure 19 Excerpt from Application's Traffic Study
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
33
Exhibit5
•The challenging conditions, limited widths, and steep drop offs associated with the Red
Canyon Section of County Road 115, warrant changes in operation to avoid adding
unsustainable levels of traffic to the roadway and impacting public safety. Road and Bridge
has suggested considering making the canyon section of the road one-way along with other
safety improvements.
•The Applicant’s initial Traffic Study documents significant impact on County Road 114 and
related intersections including stacking issues at Hwy 82, generation of an overall 5,703
daily trips at buildout with 4,633 trips generated by the residential uses which will more
than triple the current traffic on County Road 114 at the Hwy 82/CMC intersection. These
impacts raise questions about the sustainability of the roadway system and impacts on
citizen quality of life and safety.
The supplemental Fox Tuttle Study introduced a wide range of reduced traffic generation
parameters (i.e. reduced luxury home occupancy, internal trip capture, private facility uses for golf
course, ski area, and restaurant) and generated a reduced daily trip estimate of 3,317 a reduction
of 2,386 trips from the original study. The report provides revised recommendations from the initial
study eliminating the second southbound left-turn lane on Hwy 82 at the County Road 114 and Hwy
82 intersection. Concerns with the supplemental study are noted below:
•The study reassigned 5% of the traffic to County Road 115 (Red Canyon Rd.)
•Only analyzed 5 of the 7 intersections included in the original study.
Figure 20 Excerpt from Application's Traffic Study
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
34
Exhibit5
•Described Red Canyon Rd. as a two-lane paved roadway.
•Figure 5 Diagram for County Road 114 and Hwy 82 still included two southbound left turn
Figure 21 Excerpt from Applicant's Traffic Study
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
35
Exhibit 5
lanes.
• Asserts that the “The majority of the recommendations are based on existing deficiencies
and not related to the Spring Valley Ranch project”.
• Commitments for roadway upgrades are reflected in the submittals. Should the PUD
Amendment move forward, final design, engineering and CDOT access permitting for
improvements to the County Road 114 and Highway 82 intersection should be required
immediately as part of the first phase of development. No future Preliminary Plan/Plat or
Final Plat approvals should be allowed if final engineering and construction plans fail to
meet CDOT requirements/standards.
• A first phase of traffic improvements should include construction of all County Road 114 and
Hwy 82 intersection improvements and the initial County Road 114 interim improvements
outlined in the referral comments from the County Road and Bridge Department.
• Applicant suggestions for further mitigation of traffic impacts on County Road 114 included
creation of uphill passing lanes. County Road and Bridge noted the difficulty of such plans
due to limited right-of-way width.
• Potential impacts on County Road 110 have been noted with limited options to reduce or
mitigate impacts. Requirements for local traffic only signage and PUD restrictions on
construction traffic are considerations.
• Given the length of the development phasing plan and extensive infrastructure construction
demands, construction traffic impacts are noted as a significant ongoing concern and do not
appear to have been modelled by the traffic study.
• The County Standards for access in Section 7-107 of the LUDC requires that “All roads shall
be designed to provide for adequate and safe access. The County Road 114 and Hwy 82
intersection was rated with a Level of Service F for background traffic and continued to be
rated as Level of Service F with the proposed improvements. Unrealistically high stacking
lengths were also reflected in the Traffic Study. With key intersection Level of Service ratings at F, and with acknowledgement by the Applicant’s Initial Traffic Engineer that the key intersection is failing and will continue to fail, the Staff’s position is that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the LUDC Standards for access have been met.
• While the overall internal roadway system includes a looped roadway system with secondary
emergency access, many of the internal roadways and cul-de-sacs do not comply with the
LUDC restriction on dead-end streets to a maximum of 600 ft. Some dead-end sections
appear to be up to ¼ mile in length (1,000+ ft.) The code allows for an exception however
given the high wildland fire ratings for the property exceptions are not supported by Staff.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
36
Exhibit 5
• Adjustments to the internal road and lot layout should be considered to reduce cul-de-sac
lengths, proximity to adjoining properties, additional single loaded sections to reduce
impacts on adjacent open space corridors, and to create a more clustered development
configuration with an overall reduction in roadway miles. Limiting initial development phases to the lower and middle benches of the property is one means to address a number of the issues noted and further mitigate impacts.
Section 7-108 Land Subject to Natural Hazards – Fire, wildfire, and geologic hazards are addressed in other standards below. Limited natural water bodies exist on the site. Existing FEMA FIRM tiles only identified an area of undetermined but possible flood hazard. Future preliminary plans will need to address this area in more detail. Future development will need to manage stormwater through a full spectrum of approaches, ranging from small normal storm events to larger 25-year or 100-year events. By slowing down runoff through the use of detention/retention and channel design, the developments can minimize erosion and channeling along drainage ways. Preliminary Plans should address large scale stormwater facilities and design. The PUD represents that each property will be responsible to capture and treat stormwater, though referral reviews cast doubts on the long-term viability of depending on individual lot owners to property install and maintain such systems. At the time of preliminary plan, the grading and drainage plans should account for runoff from individual properties. Dam Failure and inundation reports and studies for the Hopkins Reservoir need to be further considered at the time of Preliminary Plan/Plat to ensure compliance with the Applicant’s Drainage and Flood Hazard Report recommendation that no habitable structures be located within the inundation boundary.
Section 7-109 Fire Protection – The Spring Valley Ranch PUD area is outside of the current Glenwood Springs and Carbondale fire districts. The Landis Creek Metropolitan District (LCMD) provides fire protection services in this area with volunteer fire fighters. The PUD is proposing a new station to provide services to this area, as well as a contract with either Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District or the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District. The primary Fire Station would be located in Plan Area D, and there is the possibility of additional Stations in Mixed Use and Open Space Recreation Zone Districts. The LCMD will own the Fire Station and provide a brush truck, engine, and ambulance. These will be operated by whichever District the LCMD contracts with. The proposal narrative states that the brush truck and its staffing, including EMT, will be in place prior to the construction of
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
37
Exhibit 5 infrastructure. The PUD Guide Section 7.8 Fire Protection Standards includes sprinkling requirements. These systems may require additional storage. The Guide also includes standards for non-combustible or fire-resistant building materials. In addition, language related to maintaining year-round emergency vehicle access and safe access to hydrants is also provided. Both CRFPD and GSFD provided referral comments, and each expressed concerns with the time it will take for emergency services to be provided. Dedicated helicopter landing zone was recommended to help mitigate increases in emergency transportation calls, especially those related to recreation activities. Both recommended that staffing plans be further fleshed out to ensure that adequate and professional staffing is provided and maintained to serve the area. Appropriate agreements should be made not only with fire districts, but with communication departments and other emergency management agencies. Staff recommends that fire protection services and equipment be more than a brush truck by the time structure construction begins. Fires during construction are not uncommon and appropriate response measures should be in place.
Section 7-201 Agricultural Lands – If developed, the area would result in the loss of some grazing areas. Any ditches will have to be maintained in accordance with state statutes.
Section 7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas – The Spring Valley Ranch PUD covers over 5,900 acres of largely undeveloped land. Significant habitats exist in this area for elk, mule deer, bear, mountain lion, and numerous other small animals and flora. Elk and mule deer can serve as umbrella species, meaning steps taken to protect these species’ habitats will protect other species. The proposal will have both significant direct impacts on wildlife (loss or change of habitat) and indirect impacts from increased residential, recreational, and related uses. Analysis will focus on these two species ranges, though some additional measures are required to limit human wildlife conflict. The application addresses some of these considerations. Part of the project’s proposed real estate transfer fee would go towards wildlife projects within the local Data Analysis Unit (DAU E-16) and Game Management Unit (GMU 444). The current proposal will set aside 3,249 acres of open space, of which 1,320 will be wildlife habitat reserves. These areas are identified by hatching on the PUD Map, shown below. Essentially, two large areas, one about 514 acres across Planning Areas A and B in the
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
38
Exhibit5
southwest and the second approximately 806 acres across Planning Areas H and G in the north/northwest are set aside in this overlay. They are connected by Landis Creek. These areas are within Open Space Limited, Open Space Recreation, and Pasture Districts. The PUD guide
Figure 22 Excerpt from PUD Map, hatched areas are Wildlife Habitat Overlay
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
39
Exhibit 5 and draft CC&R’s provide some additional guidelines designed to reduce impacts and minimize conflict between residents and wildlife. A development on this scale will impact local wildlife populations. The designated open space areas, proposed restoration projects/grants, and proposed management may offset these impacts some; however, the loss of habitat through development and habitat fragmentation will be detrimental. The map from the application’s impact analysis reproduced below shows how the proposed wildlife habitat areas overlap with some of the elk production areas. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) provided extensive review of the applications Wildlife Mitigation Plan (found in the Impact Analysis). CPW supports a strategy of avoid, minimize, and mitigate when it comes to offsetting impacts of new developments. Avoid is to locate development in areas outside of critical habitat, minimize deals with steps taken to lessen the direct/indirect impacts, and mitigate is often in the form of offsite projects to preserve and/or uplift similar habitat. CPW reviews indicate that the development of the 5,900-acre area will result in significant direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. The agency requested more meaningful mitigation measures as conditions of approval, including the requirement that the Wildlife Mitigation Plan be adopted only with the consent of the local wildlife Management and BOCC. Other recommendations include the extending of construction (and recreation in some areas) limitations from December 1st through April 30th, increasing the real estate transfer assessment set aside for wildlife impact mitigation, additional assessment of trail impacts, and requirements to minimize human/wildlife conflicts. Staff supports CPW’s comments as well as a reduction/relocation of density (direct impacts) from elk production areas. Further habitat connection through the Landis Creek corridor or other areas may also offset some predicted impacts. Raptor nest surveys should be incorporated into seasonal limitations as well.
This area intentionally left blank
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
40
Exhibit5
Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies –The PUD guide does not directly address this item, meaning these standards will remain in place. In addition to the 35-foot setback required by this section, additional wildlife corridor should be mapped and protected to connect the large open spaces set aside as wildlife habitat. The Application submittals document areas of wetland on the site. These areas should be further documented as part of any Preliminary Plan/Plat application and properly protected and/or mitigated.The natural areas along Landis Creek provide significant habitat and vegetative diversity and should be further protected with increased open space corridor width and consideration of maintaining minimum stream flows.
Figure 23 Critical Habitat Areas overlapped with PUD plan, from application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
41
Exhibit 5
Section 7-204 Drainage and Erosion – As discussed in Section 7-108 and Section 7-207, drainage and erosion control limits long term hazards such as debris flow, subsidence, runoff channels, or decreases in water quality. A full spectrum of stormwater and drainage measures should be taken to minimize the accumulation of impacts from normal precipitation as well as larger events. These items should be addressed at the time of preliminary plan at the neighborhood level and included in the design and development of individual properties.
Section 7-205 Environmental Quality – Water and air quality must be maintained in compliance with all applicable laws. CDPHE did not provide specific comments. These items would be further addressed at the time of preliminary plan and/or construction, as appropriate.
Section 7-206 Wildfire Hazards – Garfield County has a history of severe wildfires, including the infamous Storm King Mountain and recent Grizzle Creek Fire. Recent periods of drought have exasperated conditions for wildfires. The project site is currently dominated by various types of native vegetation. The scrub oak and sages found in the lower elevations are noted to have high risks of wildfire. The higher elevation mixture of trees has a more varied risk, though the mixed conifers can exhibit more dangerous burn patterns. According to the CO-WRAP data available to staff, the wildfire risk of the subject parcels’ ranges from the Lowest Risk to the Highest Risk, though it appears to be dominated by Moderate to High Risks. The Middle Bench has the highest risk level, the area’s closer to CR 115 have Moderate Risk, and the Risk level lowers to lowest level in the northeastern area. The application states that the area is defined by mostly moderate and high wildfire risk on page 8 of its Wildfire Mitigation Report.
This area intentionally left blank
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
42
Exhibit5
Figure 24 Image of Figure 21 from Wildfire Mitigation Report.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
43
Exhibit5
The map above shows the data currently available to staff, modeling possible wildfire risks. This data is in the process of being updated, though staff does not know when it will be available. Extensive construction projects increase the risk of wildfires, and the proposed developments would be exposed to the risk of future wildfires. The development will create new wildland-urban interface and/or intermix. This may trigger additional requirements based on State laws and fire codes. Evacuation from the site would be dependent on the local County Road Systems and eventually Hwy 82. Evacuation modeling was not available at this time. The applicant has proposed using the Clubhouse as a shelter in case of severe wildfire. Additional satellite shelters may be appropriate in accordance with the referral comments received. Staff recommends that final sheltering and evacuation plans be provided with preliminary plans and that evacuation
Figure 25 Wildfire Risk in the Proposed Parcels, Co-Wrap 2019 Data
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann –Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP –Principal Planner
44
Exhibit5modeling be provided with those traffic studies. The application’s Wildfire Mitigation Report received good reviews from both fire districts and the Colorado State Forest Service. This report includes several recommendations, the most prominent being defensible spaces around all structures. This involves removing flammable fuels from near homes. The report expands by recommending Defensible Space Easements to allow property owners of lots with steep slopes to extend their defensible space downhill beyond their property line. At a larger community or landscape scale, the development will reduce fuels through mowings and roadside thinning. The road system with its associated thinning is represented as providing fuel breaks. This is critical to ensuring that evacuation routes are safe. Ignition resistant building materials are being required by the development standards. Sprinkler systems are also required. A combination of these items may help prevent the loss of structures in a future wildfire or prevent structural fires from expanding to the neighboring landscape.Staff supports the fire districts’ recommendation the development achieve full Fire Wise
Community designation. Additional emergency pull-offs should be provided on the longer cul-de-sacs, and the Development Guide’s standards for shared driveways should be expanded to 10-foot lanes and 20 feet of total right of way.
Figure 26 Defensible Space Diagram. from Application
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
45
Exhibit 5
Section 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards – Flood, fire, and wildfire hazards are addressed elsewhere in this report. This section will focus on geologic conditions and hazards. The almost 6,000-acre area is underlined by a wide variety of geologic formations. The application’s Geologic Evaluation examines existing conditions as well as likely hazards. The majority of these hazards are related to the steepness of local slopes as well as vegetation, soil types, and underlying geology. Potentially Unstable Slopes was identified as the most common geologic hazard across the subject parcels. Despite the potential of the hazard, the geologic evaluation did not identify any recent events and concluded that the major deposits were stable. The report mapped areas with slopes over 30% as higher risk potential areas (Pus1) and lower risk potential areas (Pus2). The distinction is based on whether there are identified slope failure deposits underlaying the steep slopes. Some evidence of soil creep was identified in an area northwest of Landis Creek. Debris and mudflow hazards were identified in limited areas, mostly narrow drainages associated with Landis Creek or the South-Central area of the property. Very limited areas of rockfall were identified in the report in those areas as well. Ground subsidence was also only a minor threat in the area. At the time of preliminary plan, grading permit, building permit, and other development permits, site specific geotechnical reporting and engineering should be done to identify and mitigate site specific hazards, such as rockfall, subsidence, or unstable slopes. These are typical requirements for preliminary plan applications, but additional care should be taken to address concerns identified in the applications existing report and CGS’s referral comments. As discussed under grading a drainage, future developments should employee a full spectrum of stormwater control measures minimizing the impact of normal rainfall/storm events as well as larger events, such as 25- or 100-year events. This includes the use of detention features to limit the debris/mud flows.
Section 7-208 Reclamation – Reclamation and security will be required as part of subdivision improvement agreements, grading permits, and other activities that result in disturbance.
Section 7-301 Compatible Design – The extensive nature of the PUD’s uses put it at odds with the fairly uniform uses found in the immediate vicinity of the 5,900 acre subject site. However, by clustering development, maximizing buffers, and preserving wildlife habitat, and eliminating or reducing commercial
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
46
Exhibit 5 type recreation, the proposal may be able to improve its compatibility.
Section 7-302 Off Street Parking – The proposal includes off-street parking standards in the PUD guide.
Section 7-303 Landscape Plan – Landscaping is addressed to a limited extent in the PUD guide, mostly with regards to minimizing wildfire hazards.
Section 7-304 Lighting – All future lighting will need to meet the county’s standards.
Section 7-305 Snow Storage – Adequate snow storage is anticipated to be available. This will need to be further shown at the time of Preliminary Plan or building permit.
Section 7-306 Trails and Walkways – The Application includes information and plans for public access to pedestrian/mountain bike trails. These proposals represent a significant public benefit and should be considered for expansion as appropriate. The trail standards warrant additional review to include potential increase in the PUD Guide Trail standards to a minimum tread width of 2 ft. for single track trails.
DIVISION 7 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS – Will be addressed at the time of preliminary plan and final plat, including impact fees.
ARTICLE 6 PUD CRITERIA
PUD REVIEW CRITERIA AND SECTION 6 PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Specific review criteria for PUD Applications are included in Section 6-202(C) and provide specific direction and key considerations (see below). The Application submittals contain specific responses to the criteria. This report will provide Staff analysis and assessment. Criteria 1: Purpose & Applicability The Purpose and Applicability section refers to “The general purpose of PUD zoning is to permit greater design flexibility than is allowed by the base zone district or Subdivision regulations….” The purpose section also references applicable State Statutes which include design flexibility. The purpose further requires the “PUD’s must be in general conformance with e Comprehensive Plan” Applicability provisions require a minimum size of 2 acres, sufficient to implement a unified
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
47
Exhibit 5 plan and that PUD zoning may be requested for land in any zone district. Criteria 2: Development Standards Section 6-401
• Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses can include those in the underlying zoning or in conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The underlying zoning, prior to past PUD Rezoning was the Rural (R) Zone District or its predecessor the A/R/RD Zone District. These zones generally allow the mix of uses proposed for the PUD, in some cases subject to Land Use Change Permitting. This includes the proposed residential uses, affordable housing/multi-family housing, supporting commercial uses, Community Meeting Facilities, lodging, and Outdoor Recreation.
• Off-street parking: This standard is addressed in the PUD Guide. Further refinement for specific uses such as the golf course and Ski Area is appropriate.
• Density: The density is just above the recommended 10 acres/dwelling unit for the FLUM Low Density Residential designation for the property. Non-residential density is a modest component of the PUD with uses generally focused on the Mixed-Use Zone District and Open Space Recreational Zone Districts. The density is well below the maximum for a PUD with central water and sewer and calculated pursuant to this section to be approximately 10.2 acres/dwelling unit or 1/10 of a dwelling unit per acre.
• Housing Types: The PUD Plan reflects a wide range of housing types in various zone districts and puts forth an Affordable Housing Plan with 75 affordable units.
• Transportation and Circulation: The Applicant’s Traffic Studies along with referral comments focus attention on access and traffic conditions that required significant mitigation. Even with improvements questions remain regarding the capacity of the system to meet the safe, convenient and adequate circulation system provision of this standard.
• Recreational Amenities: The PUD incorporates a number of recreational amenities including trails, golf, skiing, and court sport amenities associated with the club house.
• Building Heights: The PUD Guide includes building heights limit of 35 ft., 10 ft. higher than typical for most LUDC Zone Districts.
• Lots: A range of minimum lots sizes are proposed from ¼ acre up to 5 acres. Preliminary Plan/Plat review will be needed to confirm building envelopes based on site specific geo-tech analysis.
• Phasing: The updated phasing plan includes specific timing requirements for dwelling unit development and off-site improvements. Further refinement of the PUD Guide provisions on phasing is needed to confirm compliance with this standard as noted below. As submitted this standard is not met and failure to proceed with certain phases may adversely impact both prior and future phases.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
48
Exhibit5
Criteria 3: Standards, Article 7Issues with compliance with key Article 7 Standard are noted in the Staff Analysis and include but are not limited to the summary listing below:
•Section 7-107 provision of an adequate and safe access based on traffic and roadway
impacts including limitations on cul-de-sac lengths.
•Significant Wildlife and Habitat impacts including but not limited to compliance with
Section 7-202.
•Conformance with Section 7-104 and 7-105 regarding water supply plans including
adequacy and long-term sustainability.
•Section 7-206 Wildfire Hazard for the site and adequacy of emergency vehicle access and
evacuation planning.
•Section 7-207 Natural hazards for the site including slopes and geologic constraints.
•Section 7-103 Compatibility with surrounding Land Uses.Criteria 4 RezoningThis criterion calls for logical and orderly development pattern (not spot zoning), changing conditions such that the rezoning is in the best interest of the public, that the rezoning addresses a community need and that the rezoning is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.The plan does not constitute spot zoning;however,the zoning does not address community need or changing conditions in a manner that provides for the public’s best interest.The PUD Plan reflects consistency with some elements of the Comprehensive Plan but in some areas clearly is in conflict.Criteria 5 Established Zoning StandardsThe PUD Plan and Guide provide detailed Zoning Standards governing density and intensity of use including dimensional and other standards typical of zoning requirements.Further review of key standards is warranted based on some of the development constraints associated with the site and identified in the Staff Analysis of particular issues.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
49
Exhibit 5 Summary While the PUD submittals including the PUD Guide and proposed zoning are generally formatted as anticipated by the above criteria, key areas of concern remain regarding certain Article 7 Standards, Article 6 Design Standards and Comprehensive Plan Provisions. A finding of conformity with the PUD Criteria is not supported by Staff.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL TOPICS AND SUMMARY
• The Application includes the proposal for a Real Estate Transfer Assessment of 2% of sales price of all real estate sales. The Applicant’s estimate is that the Transfer Fee will generate about $76 million during the initial 15 years of the project. The Applicant’s proposal to manage the funds generated through the Western Colorado Community Foundation (WCCF) and Two/River Community Foundation warrants additional review by the County to ensure that CPW/Wildlife impacts and Spring Valley impacts are addressed. Utilizing a local Garfield County non-profit is a preferred alternative along with more specific provisions and direction on the use of the generated funds. Mitigation of impacts in the Spring Valley area and Roaring Fork Valley would be logical priorities to further address short term (construction) and long-term impacts.
• Overall financial impacts/benefits from the development have also been modelled and are outlined in the submittals. The impacts including job generation appear as benefits except when considering the current challenges to provide workforce housing close to jobs and the additional impacts on traffic associated with a commuting workforce.
• The application is a major proposal in an area with limited development. However, the subject parcels have a long history of PUD approvals. The proposed layout is preferable to the current approvals, and staff supports the creation of dedicated open space for wildlife habitat, recreation, and agricultural uses. The application has provided extensive review and response to numerous natural and manmade conditions.
• When reviewing the application as it is presented, staff finds significant issues with the proposals likely impacts on wildlife populations, traffic, wildfire risks, and water supply. These issues are largely a result of scale.
X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL Based on the SVR Application as submitted and reviewed by Staff and Extensive Referral Agencies the Staff Recommendation is for denial with the following findings. The Findings are drawn from the Staff Analysis section of the Staff Report.
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
50
Exhibit 5
2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for PUD Rezoning for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, a Substantial Modification to the existing PUD is not in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. That the Application as submitted and reviewed is not in general conformance with the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan as amended.
5. That the Application as submitted and reviewed has not demonstrated compliance with the provisions and review criteria contained in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013 as amended, Article 6, PUD’s including but not limited to Section 6-401 Standards and Section 6-202(C) Review Criteria.
6. That the Application as submitted and reviewed has not demonstrated compliance with the provisions and standards contained in the Land Use and Development Code of 2013 as amended, Article 7 including but not limited to: a. Section 7-103, Compatibility. b. Section 7-104, Source of Water. c. Section 7-107, Access. d. Section 7-206, Wildfire. e. Section 7-202, Wildlife f. Section 7-108 and 207, Natural Hazards A Planning Commission motion to recommend to the BOCC Denial should include the above findings and a sample is provided below: “I move to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Application as submitted and reviewed subject to the six findings contained in the Staff Report including failure of the Application to demonstrate conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable provisions of the Land Use and Development Code 2013 as amended.”
XI. CONTINUATION MOTION IF NEEDED A motion for continuation of the public hearing to allow for additional public comment will need to include a specific time, date and location. Details on potential meeting dates/locations will be available at the hearing.
File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Glenn Hartmann – Director PC October 22, 2025 Philp Berry, ACIP – Principal Planner
51
Exhibit 5
XII. TOPICS FOR CONSIDERATION AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Provided for the Commission’s consideration is the following list of topics that could be considered for drafting as conditions of approval.
• General revisions to the PUD Plan and PUD Guide to address specific refinements to zone districts and density (i.e. lot size considerations, use types, compatibility considerations)
• Revisions to the PUD Plan to incorporate additional clustering and preserve larger contiguous open space, severe winter habitat and calving/production areas and wildlife mitigation corridors.
• Revisions to the Phasing Plan including potential for limiting or reducing the initial development phases and requiring PUD Amendments for future phases.
• Revisions to Traffic Mitigation and Off-Site Improvements to County Roads including future review of traffic impacts and ongoing review of the performance of mitigation and intersection upgrades. This should include construction traffic impacts.
• Revisions to internal road circulation plans and reduction in cul-de-sac lengths.
• Revisions to Water Supply Plans and related provisions in the PUD Guide to include a Comprehensive Water Monitoring Plan, details of the plan including mitigation provisions.
• Additional details on Wildfire evacuation plans and routes.
• Further refinements to the Affordable Housing Plan including details on for sale unit options.
• Additional editing and refinements to the Development Agreement.
• Inclusion of requirements for timing and operational parameters for the Landis Creek Metro District.
1
Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendments
Public Comment Exhibits
Exhibit # Public Comment, Name and Date Received 6-1 Mike Kenealy – February 23, 2024; March 21, 2024; September 5, 2024; April 3, 2025 6-2 Lawrence Fennell – February 28, 2024 6-3 Anthony Choma – March 1, 2024 6-4 Susan Brown – March 1, 2024 6-5 Miriam Muniz-Fennell – March 1, 2024; March 24, 2025 6-6 Kim Stacey – March 2, 2024 6-7 Diane Knight – March 2, 2024 6-8 Paul Stover – March 2, 2024 6-9 Joyce Kauffman – March 2, 2024 6-10 Kris Shannon – March 2, 2024 6-11 Heather Conlan – March 2, 2024 6-12 Justin Seymour – March 2, 2024 6-13 Barb Hurwitz – March 2, 2024; March 25, 2024 6-14 Maureen Rothman – March 3, 2024 6-15 Doug Greenholz – March 3, 2024, February 3, 2025 6-16 Bernhard Donaubauer – March 3, 2024 6-17 Art Rothman – March 3, 2024 6-18 Unsigned Public Comment – March 3, 2024 6-19 Ryan Sweeney – March 5, 2024 6-20 Holly Fuller McLain – March 5, 2024; September 20, 2024 6-21 Claudia Capitini – March 7, 2024 6-22 Janet Anderson – March 14, 2024 6-23 Simon Hambidge – March 24, 2024 6-24 Elizabeth Bayliss – March 26, 2024 6-25 Steve Kuschner – April 11, 2024 6-26 Paul Burbidge – April 12, 2024
2
6-27 Donnalyne LaGiglia – April 16, 2024 6-28 Susan (Susi) Zedlacher – April 18, 2024; May 1, 2024 6-29 Priscilla Prohl-Cooper – April 18, 2024 6-30 Stephanie Hernadez – April 23, 2024 6-31 Siri Olsen – April 29, 2024 6-32 Janae, Kevin, Leslie and Gary Jochum – April 29, 2024 6-33 Ron Acee – May 3, 2024 6-34 Jim Austin – May 6, 2024 6-35 Sara Shainholtz – May 6, 2024 6-36 Courtney Carr - May 6, 2024 6-37 Michael Jelks – May 14, 2024 6-38 Elizabeth Donovan – May 24, 2024 6-39 Elise Osenga – May 27, 2024 6-40 David Hodgins – June 5, 2024 6-41 John Howard – August 26, 2024 6-42 Richard Rogers – September 8, 2024 6-43 Elizabeth (Liz) Tierney – September 9, 2024 6-44 Kathy Morary – September 10, 2024; April 3, 2025 6-45 SGM Comments and Concerns for SVR PUD Report - September 2024 6-46 Ryan Hygon – September 12, 2024 6-47 Robert Shettel – September 12, 2024 6-48 Jennifer Duffy – September 13, 2024 6-49 Jerome Dayton – September 13, 2024 6-50 Spring Valley Coalition Petition - September 13, 2024 6-51 Lorna Marchand and David Miller – September 14, 2024 6-52 Katie Dyal – September 14, 2024 6-53 Rick Carlson – September 14, 2024 6-54 Marj Perry – September 15, 2024 6-55 Ginny and Tom Harrington – September 15, 2024; September 16, 2024 6-56 Don and Diana Metzler – September 16, 2024 6-57 Steve Wilcut – September 16, 2024
3
6-58 Jackie Warncke – September 16, 2024 6-59 Ted Benge – September 17, 2024 6-60 Janna Six – September 17, 2024 6-61 Phil Armstrong – September 18, 2024 6-62 Tyler Stableford – September 18, 2024 6-63 Patty L. Frederick – October 10, 2024 6-64 Lydia Frederick – October 14, 2024 6-65 Even Weger – February 10, 2025 6-66 Kara Edewaard – February 10, 2025; March 31, 2025 6-67 Robin Van Norman and Jim Vickroy – February 22, 2025 6-68 Denise Lefort – February 22, 2025 6-69 Patrick King – February 26, 2025 6-70 Bill and Liz Caris – March 10, 2025 6-71 Philip Maass – March 20, 2025 6-72 Ashley R. Gonzalez – March 24, 2025 6-73 Kelly Black – March 27, 2025 6-74 Katherine Bird – March 28, 2025 6-75 Barbara Maxson – March 31, 2025 6-76 Gregg Minion – March 31, 2025 6-77 Greg Boecker – March 31, 2025 6-78 Barbara Neal – March 31, 2025 6-79 Brian Larch – March 31, 2025 6-80 Clayton Smith – March 31, 2025 6-81 Andrea Beiswanger – March 31, 2025 6-82 Lisa and Paul Sansom – March 31, 2025 6-83 Megan Chester – March 31, 2025 6-84 Karen Moculeski – March 31, 2025 6-85 Josh Wamboldt – April 2, 2025 6-86 George Tzanetoupoulos – April 2, 2025 6-87 Lynn Babicka – April 3, 2025 6-88 Gary Morary – April 4, 2025
4
6-89 Lynn Uhl – September 29, 2025; October 8, 2025 6-90 Mary Harris, Roaring Fork Audubon – September 29, 2025 6-91 6-92 6-93 6-94 6-95 6-96 6-97 6-98 6-99 6-100 6-101 6-102 6-103 6-104 6-105 6-106 6-107 6-108 6-109 6-110
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mike Kenealy < mekenealy@yahoo.com >
Friday, February 23,2024 12:49 PM
Glenn Hartmann
Kathleen@ prstudioco.com
Spring Valley Ranch Amendment Application Comments
20240223 -SVR- Pro posal-Concerns-letter.pdf
I t", don't often get email from mekenealy@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
Greetings Gtenn, lt's been a long time. I hope you all are doing wet[ these days.
Ptease,see the attached Letter I just drafted regarding comments/concerns with part of the SVR Proposal
that shbutd probabty be considered by the proponent before finat approval is granted. Fee[ free to call or
contacted me with questions or any cl.arifications you have. Thanks, Mike Keneaty
1
2/23/24
February 23,2024
Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
Garfield County
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via email: eha rtmann@garfi eld-countv.com
Dear Glenn,
I just spent several hours reviewing the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Application (File
No. SPFA-02-22-88811on the county website. I heard there was a "SVR Neighbors" meeting held
by the developer yesterday morning and this morning I was provided a letter, dated February
L4,2O24, about the meeting. Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of the meeting until after the fact, so I
decided to send some concerns to you. The SVR letter indicates they are still waiting for county
approval so I assume public comments might still be considered. Kathleen Wanatowicz is cited in
the letter as the one who coordinated the meeting, so I am forwarding this emailto her also, so
SVR is aware of these concerns.
The PUD amendment application appears to be comprehensive and thorough, but my interests
are primarily in the Transportation Analysis. There is a glaring omission in the analysis. There
was no mention or analysis of transportation impacts from the expected traffic increases along
CR110 or to the intersection of Cattle Creek Road (CR 113), the "Old Dump Road" (CR110) and
Highway 82. As a point of reference, my family and I have lived on CR110 for over 30 years and
have observed the changes and traffic patterns on CR110 and the CR113/Hwy 82 intersection for
that whole time.
A significant portion of the traffic coming down or going up to the CMC Road (CR 114) utilizes
CR110 as a 'tut-off route" if their destination is/was anywhere up-valley along Hwy 82. lt is a
much shorter route than lower CR114 for anyone traveling in that direction. Additionally, the
traffic on CR 113 has continued to increase with expanding development along Cattle Creek and
all of it uses the CR113/Hwy 82 intersection. Most traffic contributes to congestion along these
routes at least twice per trip while coming and going, with some making the trip more than once
per day. The SVR analysis does a good job analyzing possible impacts along CR114 and other
routes expected to be impacted, but totally neglects any consideration of traffic impacts to CR110
or the CR113/Hwy 82 intersection. There is no reason to expect that persons driving to and from
the SVR development won't fully utilize the CR110 cut-off too.
As county staff are aware, CR 113 also becomes a major access route if/whenever Glenwood
Canyon is closed during the non-winter months. Traffic backups during those times are very
significant and transportation safety issues increase commensurately. I submitted written
comment when the county was requesting them regarding the intersection during consideration
of Cottonwood Pass improvements. Those comments focused on the simple re-striping of the
turn lanes at the base of CR 113/110 so vehicles aligned properly for a right or left turn onto Hwy
82. I also suggested the potential for small, solar powered flashing red lights around the
perimeter of the STOP signs at each route leading to this intersection so people driving down CRs
113 and 110 have an additional reminder to stop where they should before they move forward to
2/23/24
Glenn Hartmann
Sent:
To:
Cc:
From:mekenealy < mekenealy@yahoo.com >
Thursday, February 29,2024 2:20 PM
Kathleen Wanatowicz
Glenn Hartmann
RE: Spring Valley Ranch Amendment Application Comments
You don't often get email from mekenealy@yahoo.com. Learn whv this is important
Thsnks Kathleen,
We could meet and I'm willing if it'd help. lt might be worth talking with the county and planners instead since they're
the ones with traffic engineers who should know what's possible to do with that situation. They should also have traffic
counts to better determine those impacts. I just know traffic has increased and certainly will even more with the SVD
project.
Prohibiting heavy construction truck traffic on the road would help, and I think better marking would help alot.
I also believe that fully disclosing the anticipated impacts and any mitigation proposals to 110 Rd and the Hwy 82
intersection is important to be included.
Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Mike
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Original message
From: Kathleen Wanatowicz <Kathleen@prstudioco.com>
Date: 2/26/24 9:47 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Mike Kenealy <mekenealy@yahoo.com>
Cc: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
Subject: RE: Spring Valley Ranch Amendment Application Comments
Mike,
We have received your email and letter. lf you would to arrange a meeting with the Storied development team to
discuss these concerns further, please inform us at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Kathleen
Subiect:
1
Storied Development
2/29/24
You don't often get email from mekenealy@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Additional SVR Comments
Date:Friday, March 22, 2024 8:58:40 AM
Attachments:20240321_Additional Concerns letter.pdf
From: Mike Kenealy <mekenealy@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 9:35 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Cc: Mike Kenealy <mekenealy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Additional SVR Comments
March 21, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
Garfield County
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
Dear Glenn,
I’ve been able to spend some more time reviewing the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Amendment Application (File No. SPFA-02-22-8881) since I submitted comments to
you in my letter dated February 24, 2024. At that point I was informed this proposal was
in the final review, so those comments resulted from a cursory, 1-day review of the
application package.
Now that I’m aware the formal presentation to Planning and the BOCC has not been
3/21/24
scheduled yet I have some additional comments to add regarding the Transportation
Impact Study (TIS) portion of the application. They are attached as a pdf.
I’d appreciate your letting me know when you've received them and whether I need to do
something more to assure they are included in the record. Please feel free to give me a
call or e-mail if you would like to discuss these.
I anticipate submitting additional comments pertaining to the rest of the proposal since I
have concerns beyond the TIS now that I’ve had time to read through it.
Please add my name and e-mail to any mailing list regarding and future County action on
this proposal.
Thanks,
Mike Kenealy
(970) 379-9401
mekenealy@yahoo.com
March 21, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
Garfield County
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via attachment to an email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
Dear Glenn,
Included below are additional comments and concerns with the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Amendment Application Transportation Impact Study (TIS) to be added to the comments I
submitted via e-mail on February 23, 2024.
The standard font are citations and the bold, italicized font are my comments:
******
The SVR TIS page 9 - 1.3 Intersection Analysis Locations In addition to site accesses, this report
also studies five additional off-site intersections:
1. SH 82 & CR 115/ Red Canyon Road
2. SH 82 & CR 114/Spring Valley Road
3. Frontage Road & CR 114/Spring Valley Road
4. Colorado Mountain College (CMC) West Access & CR 114/Spring Valley Road
5. CMC East Access & CR 114/Spring Valley Road
There is no mention or apparent concern for either short term or long-term impacts to
the CR113/CR110/Hwy 82 intersection or the structural integrity, infrastructure, and
safety for users of the steep, narrow, winding CR110.
The Garco LUDC states in Article 7; 7-107. ACCESS AND ROADWAYS; F 10. Traffic Control and
Street Lighting. Traffic control devices, street signs, street lighting, striping, and pedestrian
crosswalks are to be provided as required by the County Road and Bridge Department or other
referral agencies.
The Garco LUDC states in Article 14; N. Traffic Impact Assessment and Mitigation 1. Traffic impact
study. A study prepared by a certified traffic engineer that includes at a minimum:
a. Existing conditions. Description of the baseline condition of road segments that will be
affected by the project, including the existing physical condition, trips generated by vehicle
type on the average and at peak times, and the existing level of service for those road
segments.
b. Trip generation. For each phase of the project, a description of proposed average and peak time
site trip generation by vehicle type for the roads that will be affected by the project.
c. Mitigation. For each phase of the project, proposed mitigation of impacts to traffic including
traffic signals, and other measures to ensure that the level of service for each affected road
segment is not reduced over pre-project conditions.
Garfield County, Colorado LUDC, Table 7-107: Roadway Standards, page 7-4, May 11, 2020 include
Design Capacity-ADT levels for various roads within the county.
The TIS description of existing conditions lacks any discussion of the baseline actual
existing condition or anticipated future condition on CR110 or the 113/110/Hwy 82
intersection.
I assume that CR110 is designated as a Secondary Access Road with an ADT of 201-
400, but I suppose if may be designated as a Minor Collector (ADT 401 - 2500) since the
lane width is generously only 11 feet at my mailbox.
During phases 1-3 a large portion of the traffic traveling CR114, in either direction, will
more than likely travel CR110 to the 110/113/Hwy 82 intersection. How will those
traffic increases impact the infrastructure and safety of 110 RD? It is designated as a
“2-Lane Paved Road without Shoulders” with an ADT of either 201-400 or 401-2500.
CR110 has steep grades and blind curves.
How will infrastructure and safety impacts at the 113/110/Hwy82 intersection be
mitigated without any reconstruction and how will the actual traffic be managed for all
the vehicular ingress/egress to and from Hwy 82?
TIS Tables 4, 5 & 6 appear to show new trips generated between a total of 5,315 to 5,703 new
vehicle trips/average weekday traveling CR114 (CMC) or CR115 (Red Canyon). It assumes 95% of
this traffic will utilize CR114 and 5% will utilize CR115 (Red Canyon)’
Of the 95% that will travel CR114 they assume 30% of those will go south on Hwy 82
toward Carbondale. 5,703 X 95% = 5,418 more vehicles/day at the CR114/Hwy 82
intersection. 5,418 X 30% = 1,625 going toward Carbondale. If even just 20% of the
south bound traffic uses CR110 as a short cut that equates to 325 additional
vehicles/day on CR110 and using the CR113/110/Hwy 82 intersection.
Presumably this is at build out. However, none of the calculations include
construction traffic or the significant amount of construction related associated heavy
load trucks necessary for project completion. Numerous heavy load trucks will likely
cause significant impacts to the structural integrity of any roads used.
During the “improvement” phases almost all Carbondale bound traffic (including
heavy trucks) will go down CR110. The traffic will far exceed any reasonable, or safe
ADT level for this route.
The SVR Narrative report; Table 6, page 28 - Improvements shall be based upon the Design
Standards for an Off-Site County Road per Section 7.2 Roadway Classification & Design Standards
of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Guide.
What are the actual improvements anticipated, especially for phases 2 – 5? The 7.2
Roadway Classification & Design Standards sites appear to list what currently exists
on those road segments.
The proposed SVR Development Agreement EXHIBIT 2 - Phase 1 - Improvements to the
intersection of State Highway 82 and County Road 114 and; Phase 2 - County Road 114
Improvements: From the intersection of State Highway 82 to the intersection with County Road 110
approx. 1.5 miles)
The Garco LUDC states in Article 7, Division 1 7-107 states: B. Safe Access. Access to and from the
use shall be safe and in conformance with applicable County, State, and Federal access
regulations. Where the Land Use Change causes warrant(s) for improvements to State or Federal
highways or County Roads, the developer shall be responsible for paying for those improvements.
The Garco LUDC states in Article 2, Division 2 2-202 “C. Development Agreements. The BOCC may
enter into a development agreement with the landowner for a vesting period for longer than 3 years
when, in the discretion of the BOCC, an extension is warranted due to all relevant circumstances
including, but not limited to, project size and/or phasing of the development, economic cycles,
and/or market conditions.”
The Garco LUDC states in Article 7; 7-107. ACCESS AND ROADWAYS; F. Impacts Mitigated. Impacts
to County roads associated with hauling, truck traffic, and equipment use shall be mitigated
through roadway improvements or impact fees, or both.
The Development Agreement (DA) page 2 - There shall be no requirement to develop the Phases
shown on the New Phasing Plan in any particular order and there shall be no deadlines to either
commence or complete construction of any of the Phases.
This DA clause would create a vested right and the issues related to all traffic impacts
listed in Phase 1, Phase 2 and others will be exacerbated if the developer decides to
wait before completing the traffic related CR114 road improvements. The
Development Agreement needs to be amended to state these road improvements
need to be required as a prerequisite to any substantial construction activities up at
the actual SVR PUD site.
The Transportation Impact Study cover page map and vicinity map on page 6 do not
even show CR110. And coincidentally, all the aerial photos included are cropped so as
not to show the CR110 or the 113/110/Hwy28 intersection. This is a concern if the
omission was intentional.
Page 1 of 7
September 5, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
Garfield County
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via attachment to an email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
Cc: Phillip Berry pberry@garfield-county.com
RE: Comments regarding the Spring Valley Ranch: Responses to Referral Comments for PUD
Amendment Application File No. PUAA- 05-23-8967
Dear Glenn,
Thank you for an opportunity to comment on the Spring Valley Development proposal. The
proposal package is obviously a very lengthy document when all narratives, exhibits, and
appendices are included, and can be a challenge to read through in just a few weeks, especially
for a regular citizen of Garfield County who is not a planning expert, nor a transportation expert,
nor a fiscal planning expert, etc.
As you know, I have previously submitted 3 letters to the Planning Commission regarding
concerns with various Transportation Plan issues and an unconscionable omission of any
mitigations or concerns for the likely impacts expected on County Road 110 and the intersection
of CR 110/113 and Hwy 82. In those letters I included items that I feel will be important to
include as conditions of approval should this project be approved. Some of them were verbally
agreed to by an employee/contractor of Storied Development as options that the applicant
would be willing to commit to completing, but apparently may have recently been dropped. I
wish to hereby incorporate by reference the concerns and comments I raised in those 3
correspondences, at least all of those which were not subsequently amended and committed to
in the proponent’s 4/12/24 Referral Comments letter.
This letter focuses on additional concerns I have since reading the revised Spring Valley Ranch:
Responses to Referral Comments for PUD Amendment Application File No. PUAA- 05-23-8967,
released for public review last month.
I may be out of town on September 25th and unable to attend the scheduled public meeting so
please include this letter as official comments on this proposal.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (CRFPD); page 2; comment #2 Fire
Protection Plan:
3. With professional observation and experience, the plan for an all-volunteer fire service is not
recommended.
9/5/24
Page 2 of 7
Applicant Response:
The application does not propose an all-volunteer fire service. Section 7.11.2 of the
Narrative Report discusses the provision of staffing as follows: “During the construction
phase of the fire station, a hiring process will commence to provide the necessary
personnel to staff the station 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week.”
Comment and Concerns:
• Will the hiring process include a pay and benefits package of a level that will attract
enough qualified applicants to fill the 24/7 staffing needs? Storied should be required to
submit their intended pay/benefits scale and the estimated staffing levels needed for
the station prior to any application approval.
• What happens if Storied’s proposed hiring process fails to meet sufficient staffing levels?
What guarantees does Storied provide to maintain sufficient staffing over multiple
years? There needs to be a condition of approval which includes a guarantee of
sufficient staffing or a guaranteed, long-term monetary, out-of-pocket commitment to
the FPD to cover any additional costs incurred by the FPD.
The applicant, in the Narrative Report May-2024, section 7.13.2. page 52 states: “The
Applicant intends to re-engage and contract with one of the local fire Districts (the
District”) for the provision of fire, EMS, rescue, haz-mat and wildland fire protection
services to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD…”
• A condition of approval should require Storied to guarantee a satisfactory outcome,
either through their internal fire personnel hiring or a finalized out-of-pocket contract
with a local fire District, for full fire protection prior to any Certificate of Occupancy
being issued, and not just the stated, “intends to re-engage”. A statement of intent is
not necessarily binding, and Storied goes on to propose how they may intend to get
staffing for the whole fire protection program funded through taxes that they will
already owe anyway, thereby not costing them anything and reducing any net tax
revenue benefit to Garfield County.
In the District Inclusion section, on page 53, The applicant states, “any property taxes
collected for the District from lands located within the property boundaries would be
credited against the annual payment for contractual services, until such time as the
collected taxes exceed the operational costs of services by the District and the annual
payment is no longer necessary.”
• This would require that the BOC must utilize property taxes collected for funding a fire
protection contract at its own expense rather than being free to utilize property taxes for
other, equally needed expenses resulting from this agreement or other county needs.
Page 3 of 7
The cost of additional fire protection requirements for this development should be
funded solely at an additional expense to a developer.
• A proponent should not be able to mandate use of property taxes from their own
development proposal and those taxes should be utilized at the discretion of the BOC for
other pressing needs and not for funding additional expenses incurred by the County
solely due to approval of said development.
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District (CRFPD); page 13; comment #3
Access:
Pp#2; “There is concern about the quality of Red Canyon Road and the ability to handle extra
traffic…”
Applicant Response:
The Applicant supports the continued use of CR 115 for local residents and
emergencies, and has approached Garfield County Staff with several options for
improving safety on CR 115, including:
• Installing guardrails along exposed road sections;
• Improving the road surface with chip and seal;
• Installing signal lights at the narrow section of the road, to allow traffic to
pass in one direction at a time.
Comment and Concerns:
• Again, it appears that Storied may intend to propose that Garfield County utilize
tax revenues from the development for these improvements. It is not possible
to know who would be responsible for costs with their response, but this would
be another impact expense directly associated with the development at this
time. These improvements, or any CR115 improvements the BOC deems
appropriate, should be included as a condition of approval at the sole expense of
the applicant and not borne by current taxpayers in the county.
Garfield County Public Health (GCPH); page 4; comments 1:
1. Staff recommends a condition of approval that new pump test data be provided to Garfield
County once rehabilitation and redrilling of the wells is complete. Also, as this water system
will be regulated by CDPHE, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant
provide documentation from CDPHE that the water system meets their requirements for
domestic water distribution.
Applicant Response:
This suggested condition needs to reflect the appropriate time to address CDPHE water
system permit requirements, which is Final Plat. The Applicant will provide new pump
Page 4 of 7
test data for any rehabilitated or reconstructed well at the time of Final Plat for the
phase containing such wells. Since the water system will be regulated by CDPHE as a
Community Water System, the Applicant intends to apply for CDPHE design review and
permitting concurrently with Preliminary Plan. Documentation of CDPHE permitting for
the Community Water System will be provided at the time of the first Final Plat.
Comment and Concerns:
• Both comments 1 & 2 by GCPH and the responses from Storied only refer to the
domestic water supply, and those pump tests would only presumably be submitted at
the time the final plat is due for each phase. Storied has stated they have drilled and
tested only 6 of 36 proposed wells (pg 1 of the Water Supply and Distribution Plan
2/2/2023). At buildout this will be over 407,000 gpd, just for residences and home
irrigations (pg 2 WSaDP) and there will be an additional approximately 34,000 gpd
needed for commercial buildings. What happens if the future pump tests fail to produce
the required quantity or quality? The proponent would be approved for this amount of
water but would not be able to access it. The whole development could fail, or worse,
they just drill deeper and deeper further affecting all the current water users in the
Spring Valley. What happens when pre-existing wells in Spring Valley start to exhibit a
loss in production because of the domestic supply drawdown anticipated with this
proposal?
• Neither comment addresses the massive quantities of raw water use proposed (golf
course 329 acre ft/yr or 107,254,000/yr or 500,000 gpd for the April through October
214 day long golf season & snowmaking 500,000 gpd) to be pumped from the golf
course or snowmaking raw water wells. These are not proposed to be considered as
domestic water supplies and therefore will not necessarily even be under the jurisdiction
of CDPHE. Further water study needs to be completed prior to any consideration of
approval to assure that there is adequate water in the aquifer to satisfy the anticipated
uses and to assure that draw down of the water tables in the quantities proposed WILL
NOT IMPACT existing domestic wells in Spring Valley.
• Anecdotal evidence indicates that several domestic wells in the area already have a low
yield, especially during times of low moisture during the summer months and are
required to curtail water use with some even having to haul water for regular domestic
water use.
• What happens if the golf irrigation and/or the snowmaking water sources are found to
be impacting exiting domestic wells several years down the road?
• How will that issue be mitigated?
If this application is approved, a condition of approval should be included that includes
appropriate remedies if this occurs. To assure that the Storied wells are not impacting
other wells, a base monitoring plan should be included as a condition of approval to
Page 5 of 7
assure existing wells are not being affected. This may be even more critical if additional
water studies of the Spring Valley aquifer(s) regarding how and where water within the
Valley is stored are not satisfactorily completed prior to approval.
• Is it one big underground “pool”, or multiple smaller “pools”, does anyone really
know?
• Does the recharge rate cited for 6 wells stand up to continuous pumping of all
proposed wells or did that rate just occur during the 24-hour pump tests that were
performed on a few wells?
Either scenario seems to pose significant risk to existing domestic wells in the area if the
volumes of water proposed by Storied is pumped out.
• Approval of excessive use of water with the extended drought period in western
Colorado; the on-going demands on the Colorado River basin water supply which are
overextended now; and climate change is not appropriate. New unnecessary and
extravagant private amenities like golf courses and snow making for the south-facing ski
area are not appropriate. Approval will put existing domestic wells at risk, will drain
critical ground water and reduce flows in the Colorado River Basin, and will forever
change the character of Spring Valley. For these reasons these facilities and the
associated excessive amount of water use expected to be necessary to maintain them
should not be approved.
• If this proposal is considered for approval, a condition of approval should require the
proponent to include a discussion and guaranteed commitment about how they intend
to manage golf course by severely limiting water use during extended periods of no rain
as part of their application and mitigation plan. Additionally, if the development moves
forward with an approved golf course, SVR must be required to immediately curtail golf
course irrigation to ensure no injury to the existing local domestic water wells begin to
“dry up” more than they already are.
• Garfield County Planning documents already contain statements that are contrary to
these proposed uses:
Garfield Counties own DROUGHT AND WATER CONSERVATION IN GARFIELD COUNTY; Section 5
states:
A. PLANNING FOR DROUGHT IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN; page F-18 states, “ Since 2000, the
Colorado River Basin has experienced a prolonged drought. There have been a few wet years - 2008,
2010, and 2014, but the remaining years have been dry. 2002 was one of the driest years on record and
2012-2013 were the driest consecutive two years on record.”
The drought condition continues and is expected to continue with global climate change.
B. WATER SUPPLIES IN UNINCORPORATED GARFIELD COUNTY AND DROUGHT; pg F-19, states, “Droughts
may affect site-specific hydrogeology and groundwater well supplies resulting in decreased water well
yields, water wells “drying-up”, and diminishment of water quality. Since most of the domestic water in
Page 6 of 7
unincorporated Garfield County is sourced from groundwater wells, droughts will test the groundwater
supply’s resiliency. In certain areas where groundwater supplies are in part irrigation water infiltration,
droughts are likely to exacerbate seasonal water table fluctuations because less irrigation water is being
applied. In periods of drought, water wells may have reduced yields and physical water availability
becomes a more widespread problem for domestic well water users.
Comprehensive Plan 2030; Appendix F. Water Resources; 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS; VII. Page F-4,
states, “Water hauling is not a reliable solution for water quality and/or quantity issues in Garfield
County. Hauled water as a source of supply works if municipalities are willing to continue retail sales and
do not experience conditions that limit the availability of potable water. Water hauling may be the only
option for users that do not have safe on-site water and because of that, should be considered a fragile
supply. Users in unincorporated Garfield County may get by using hauled water, but this tenuous source
of water should be considered unacceptable for new lots because of the potential for it to be curtailed.”
Additionally, The GarCo LUDC Development Standards do not include developed downhill ski
areas as part of Recreational Activities for the rural landscape and a downhill ski area and
associated impacts will significantly change the character of the area.
Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) page 5; comment #4. Staff recommends a condition of
approval to include a noise study to examine if the noise generated by proposed uses other than
residential at the PUD will exceed CRS 25-12-103 Sound Standards.
Applicant Response:
The Applicant does not agree that a noise study is necessary for a residential golf
community. Snowmaking is specifically excluded from CRS § 25-12-103 Sound Standards,
subsection 10 as follows: “This article is not applicable to the use of property for the
purpose of manufacturing, maintaining, or grooming machine-made snow.”
Comment and Concerns:
• The applicant does not agree that a noise study is required under CRS § 25-12-103,
however, there is a very real potential, and a strong public concern that the noise of
snowmaking equipment and late-night grooming machines will negatively impact the
existing quiet quality of life that residents of Spring Valley have. Noise on a still, winter
evening or night carries for miles and the disturbance will further degrade the quality of
life for all those who’ve moved to Spring Valley for the peace and quiet it offers. It may
also create undisclosed impacts to wintering wildlife, further reducing the animal’s
survivability in the area.
• The elk winter range is depicted on the SVR map on page 17 of the application indicates
winter range for elk is south of the blue line. The deer winter range depicted on the
map on page 19 indicates winter range for deer is south of the blue line. The whole
proposed ski area is within that critical habitat. There’s are reason it’s winter range – a
primary one being not lots of snow on south facing slopes!! It is very likely that a huge
amount of snowmaking, aka lots of noise, will be required to keep south facing slopes
covered in snow. A ski area should not be approved in this type of location for the
Page 7 of 7
disruption of animals on their winter range aspect alone, but the potential for noise
pollution in Spring Valley is another important concern.
• A noise study should be required prior to consideration for any application approval so
the impacts associated with the night-time noise generated by snowmaking and
grooming machinery can be appropriately assessed. If results of this study indicate any
significant impact a condition of approval of the application should include limiting use
of this type of equipment to daytime hours only when the noise generated may be
somewhat mitigated due to other noises from daily human activities.
Thanks again for the opportunity to bring forward just a few of my concerns with this proposal.
I strongly believe it should not be approved at all. It will ruin the quality of life for those who
currently live in Spring Valley, may create severe negative impacts to their domestic water
supplies and significantly affect the wildlife that utilizes the area. The transportation impacts
and numerous increased safety issues, upon which I commented in previous correspondence,
will extend far beyond Spring Valley with 5,700 more vehicles a day at three critical intersections
along Hwy 82, on Hwy 82, and in downtown Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and beyond.
As a 50+ year resident of the valley I have tried to keep an open mind and provide substantive
comments including proposed conditions of approval in my previous letters and above for the
BOC’s consideration if the decision is to move forward with approval.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Kenealy
Mike Kenealy
(970) 379-9401, please don’t hesitate to call with questions.
4/3/25
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry; Glenn Hartmann
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Wednesday, February 28, 2024 11:39:05 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Finance Admin/ Lead Technician IV
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 11:38 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: PUAA-05-23-8967 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Ammendment and
Development
Name: Lawrence Fennell
Email: larryfennell@gmail.com
Phone Number: (832) 768-7317
Message: Hello, and thank you for your work.
I wish to express my family's extreme concern for Storied Development's proposed
development for the Spring Valley Ranch Property. This water sucking exclusive
luxury development is WRONG for the valley and Garfield county. The impact on
traffic, wildlife and our dwindling water supplies are unacceptable and unwanted.
Please say no!
Thank you again.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Friday, March 1, 2024 8:58:47 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch development
Name: Anthony Choma
Email: t.cho1@yahoo.com
Phone Number: (972) 689-2711
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
I know the tax revenue potential is huge but lets try to keep our valley the unique
Gem that it is. We all work very hard to be able to have our slice of paradise.
Developments like that belong in upscale areas like Aspen, Vail, etc.
If I am not wrong I believe a development exactly like this is being built above
Gypsum on the Eagle county side.
Yes, housing is an issue. I manage a local business and struggle to find employees to
relocate here due to housing. A private upscale development will not help our housing
situation at all. The proposed affordable homes may not even be enough to support
employees within the Storied Development.
In addition, I cannot even imagine 12 to 15 years of construction traffic up and down
CMC road. We all know the Thunder river market intersection is already extremely
dangerous.
Thank you for your time.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Friday, March 1, 2024 7:06:14 PM
Subject: Spring Valley
Name: Susan Brown
Email: segbrown@mac.com
Phone Number:
Message: Hello
I just want to add my name to the list of residents concerned about the proposed
development in Spring Valley. There is not enough water for everyone already here,
much less more people. Much much much less golf courses and snowmaking??
Thank you for your time.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Friday, March 1, 2024 2:51:37 PM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch/Storied Development
Name: Miriam Muniz-Fennell
Email: miriamexpress@gmail.com
Phone Number: (512) 293-1167
Message: Dear Mr Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
3/1/24
From:Miriam Fennell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Request for denial of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Date:Monday, March 24, 2025 11:13:47 AM
Dear Mr. Berry,
Thank you for everything you do for our community and the Roaring Fork Valley.
I am writing regarding concerns of the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD. This proposed
development poses significant threats to our community's well-being and the environment.
Specifically, I am deeply concerned about the following potential impacts:
Water Resources: The proposed development's water consumption could severely strain our
existing water supply, potentially leading to shortages and impacting the health of our local
ecosystems. We require a thorough and independent assessment of the long-term water
sustainability of this project.
Traffic Congestion: The increased traffic volume generated by this development will
inevitably exacerbate existing traffic problems, leading to longer commute times, increased
road hazards, vehicle-animal collisions and a severe decline in our quality of life. We need a
more comprehensive traffic impact study that considers the long-term effects on our roadways
as well as the effects that the traffic necessary to build infrastructure will have on the Spring
Valley area’s ability to safely evacuate in the event of a massive wildfire.
Wildlife Habitat Disruption: Spring Valley Ranch is home to diverse wildlife, and the
proposed development threatens to fragment and destroy critical habitats. The mitigation
measures that the developer is proposing will NOT protect local wildlife populations. This
development will decimate the wildlife, leaving them without natural food sources, proper
winter and summer migration pathways, increase vehicular animal deaths, and will definitely
increase human-animal conflicts, especially for the Elk, Deer and Bears.
Quality of Life: The cumulative impact of these issues—water scarcity, traffic congestion, and
habitat loss—will significantly diminish the RURAL quality of life we enjoy in this
community. We value our rural character and peaceful environment, and this development
jeopardizes both.
I urge you to carefully consider these concerns and DENY this substantial PUD proposal.
Please review this PUD in a way that prioritizes the long-term interests of our current and
future community. Please consider what we all have to LOSE. Please do not choose this
PRIVATE, EXCLUSIVE GOLF CLUB AND SKI RESORT marketed towards ONLY those
with the means to afford 2nd, 3rd and 4th resort homes over your community. Please choose
us over the short-term financial development gains the developer is proposing! Please don't
sell out our beautiful community.
Respectfully Submitted,
Miriam Muñiz Fennell
630 Foster Ridge Rd
Glenwood Springs
3/25/24
From:Miriam Fennell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Opposition to Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 2:10:17 PM
Miriam Muñiz Fennell
630 Foster Ridge Rd
Glenwood Springs CO, 81601
512-293-1167
miriamexpress@gmail.com
Submitted via email
April 2, 2025
Dear Garfield County Commissioners, Planning Commissioners and Comm. Dev. Staff,
Thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the pending proposal to amend
the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, and thank you for your tireless efforts to guide development in
Garfield County,
I am not anti-development. I am for responsible development. The current applicant making
these proposals is using the old PUD which belongs to the current owner Spring Valley
Holdings LLC as a loophole for approval. What they are proposing is dramatically and
substantially different from the 2007 plan. I don't personally care for either proposal and I
question if the vested rights are still valid at this time. The new proposal is egregious and
inappropriate for this rural area and it does not align with the Garfield County 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
In Garfield County's own plan it states this vision: “ Garfield County is dedicated to promoting
a diverse and sustainable healthy economy, protecting wildlife, maintaining or improving the
quality of our natural environment, and preserving the county's rural and Western heritage."
If Garfield County approves this PUD, the applicant will purchase the land and promises to
create a resort, in a rural area, that lacks proper infrastructure for a development of this
magnitude.
A private, gated, luxury style development, marketed to second and third homeowners with
high end, exclusive, private amenities on these nearly 6,000 acres of pristine wild land that
will be larger than all four Aspen ski mountains combined. This resort will be larger than both
the cities of Carbondale and Glenwood combined. And, this large city in our rural area will
include the following items that do not belong in a rural area. None of these amenities fits
within the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
502 luxury homes
10 rental homes
3,500sf general store
1,000sf Post office
5,000sf Fire station
1,000sf Office building
12,000sf Metro District office
4/2/25
TWO Private golf courses
Private 3 lift SOUTH facing ski mountain, larger than Sunlight
Private tubing and cross country ski area
Private 17,000sf Athletic Club
Private 6,500sf Health Fitness Club
Private 4,000sf fine dining restaurant
Private 12,000sf Family Barn
There are those in our community that believe that this development could help our housing
problem. This is false. The approval of a resort such as this will create the need for MORE
workforce housing than the 75 units they are including and will absolutely create a more
chaotic shortage of affordable homes.
The average person wanting to live in Garfield County and raise their family including but not
limited to teachers, firemen, police officers, grocery store managers, construction workers, etc
will not be able to afford these luxury homes. These 502 lots will have a starting price at $2
million dollars and will increase depending on the acreage of the lot. The developers will
impose square footage requirements so these mansions will cost anywhere from $4 to $7
million dollars or more. The Garfield County 2030 plan states that the criteria for determining
a high density development such as this would be based on the degree of benefit for the public,
affordable housing, energy conservation, preservation of views. This proposed development
absolutely does not fit our rural character as described in The Garfield County 2030 plan and
will do absolutely nothing to help our housing crisis here in the Valley. This development will
destroy one of the most beautiful rural areas of Garfield County and will be a bona fide
Disney-esque, private resort.
The Garfield County 2030 plan states the importance of maintaining or improving the quality
of our natural environment. This development will do nothing to improve the Roaring Fork
Valley’s natural environment but it will certainly take from that natural environment. It will
take our water, take our wildlife, take our clean air, take our quality of life.
Speaking to what this applicant will be taking from us, I would like to specify the biggest
topics of concern I have encountered within the community regarding this inappropriate
development. These topics include, but are not limited to, traffic, water, Wildlife, pollution,
changing the character of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Traffic- This development will give us an increased traffic nightmare! Road construction and
land development will begin simultaneously. Road construction will begin at thunder River at
the intersection of Highway 82 and Spring Valley Road which is also known as CMC Road or
County Road 114. This construction will end at the entrance of the proposed Spring Valley
Ranch development. This 4 mi section of road will be turned into a five-lane thorofare and
will be under construction for 16 years! The land construction alone will be a frustration but
along with road construction ee will also be sharing the road with the addition of hundreds of
workers that will be required for both the road construction and the developments
infrastructure as well as sharing the road with every piece of heavy equipment, dump trucks,
construction materials trucks will enter and exit through that messy little intersection of hwy
82. This will continue daily for the duration of the building period which will be 22 or more
years.
Wildfire - Besides the frustrating aspect of being stuck in construction traffic and sharing the
roads with the hundreds of workers, there is concern about what this type of increased traffic,
and increase human activity, will do to for wildfire evacuation and emergency access in the
event of a massive wildfire like the fires we have seen recently in California, Lahaina and
across the country. Our area, like most of Colorado, is considered a high risk wildfire area. We
no longer have a wildfire season. Wildfires are now happening 365 days a year. It's a simple
fact that adding more people will add more risk. 90% of wildfires in the United States in the
past 5 years have been started in combination of warmer climates and human error. And as I
stated earlier regarding traffic, if we add all of these people and there is a mega wildfire, will
we be able to evacuate in time or will we burn up in our cars?
Water - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying and we now have regular
wildfires. We have longtime community members whose wells are running dry. This
development along with its Metro district, restaurants, golf courses and South facing ski hills
will be pulling directly from the same aquifers and tributaries that all of our water well draws
from. In their own water documents the applicant states that they will use 1 million gallons of
water per day. For perspective on how much 1 million gallons of water a day looks like? It's
the same amount of water that the Glenwood Hot Springs pool holds. Imagine taking all of the
water from the Glenwood Hot Springs pool and dumping it on top of these 6,000 acres every
single day. 1 million gallons everyday. Another point of reference…Sunlight ski area utilizes
500,000 gallons of water per year. This applicant will need to use 440,000 gallons of water per
day to make snow for their South facing ski hill.
Wildlife - The nearly 6000 acres of Spring Valley Ranch is considered one of the last
untouched pieces of wilderness in our area. The impact this massive development will have on
wildlife will be tragic. This development will impact wildlife by fragmenting habitats,
disrupting migration patterns, increasing wildlife-vehicle collisions, and is guaranteed to lead
to human-wildlife conflicts, particularly affecting the bears, elk, and deer. This development
will drastically reduce the wildlife’s ability to find food, mates, and suitable breeding grounds.
The Spring Valley Ranch proposed development will create barriers to wildlife movement,
hindering their ability to migrate between their summer and winter ranges. The increased
traffic volume leads to a higher risk of wildlife-vehicle collisions, especially during migration
periods. As wildlife populations are pushed into areas closer to human development, the risk
of conflict will increase. This includes bears foraging for food in residential areas, elk
damaging property, and deer becoming road hazards.
Our quality of life - This development will introduce a more urban aesthetic leading to the loss
of what's left of our rural charm. We will see increased strain on ALL existing infrastructure
within Garfield County. We will experience Changes in Demographics leading to a shift in our
community's identity. These types of developments are known for driving up the cost of living
for everyone. Property values and housing costs will rise dramatically, making it difficult for
long-term residents to continue living in the community. This development will affect our
community’s ability to maintain our wildfire insurance. Many of us, including myself, have
been dropped at least once by insurance companies either leaving the state or not writing
additional policies.
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD dictates concepts of a private golf and ski resort that does not
align with Garfield County and The Roaring Fork Valley community. Building the
infrastructure potentially places our community at risk for the next 22 or more years. I
respectfully request that the Spring Valley Ranch PUD be fully denied. I believe we can
develop land in ways that are more beneficial for our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Miriam Muñiz Fennell
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 4:21:42 PM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: kim stacey
Email: kstacey@rof.net
Phone Number:
Message: This development would be insane.
1. WATER - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have
seemingly regular wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577
multi-million dollar large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL
with snow making capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to
be peppered all over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same
aquifers and tributaries that your water well draws from.
2. TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece
of heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to
enter and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder
River Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those
577 big houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course
workers and all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and
down through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red
Canyon Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.)
will have to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction,
CR 114 would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an
emergency (like the Grizzly Creek Fire), a large part of our community potentially has
to get out the same way, down that one road.
3. WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of
wilderness in our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult,
but the elk herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and
smaller critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
4. OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but
also subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and
the deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? What
will all of those people and all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will
be good? I'm going to leave it at that.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 2:14:44 PM
Subject: Storied Developments
Name: Diane Knight
Email: dmknight77@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 987-1666
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
Respectfully,
Diane Knight
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 1:44:07 PM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Paul Stover
Email: highlandwoodworks@msn.com
Phone Number: (970) 945-2585
Message: Glenn Hartman,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life, the
project seems out of line in such a rural and remote area. The density of the project
should only be considered for a lowland area adjacent to a major highway, similar to
what was done at Aspen Glenn. The impact of the traffic alone to this remote area is
not feasible even with the proposed widening of roads and the congestion that will be
created at the Thunder River intersection. The Roaring Fork Valley is currently
growing at an unsustainable rate and this project doesn't align with the reasons why
the residents of the county live here. We are being priced out of our valley now, with
the high cost of living, inflated real estate prices and property taxes. We dont need a
high density multi million dollar home development in a rural and remote area like
Spring Valley. Lets not Californicate our county. Keep Colorful Colorado-Colorado.
Sincerely,
Paul Stover
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 9:48:05 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Proposed Development
Name: Joyce Kauffman
Email: joyceakauffman@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 978-6422
Message: My husband, Jerry Kauffman and I live in the Elk Springs Subdivision,
which will be directly impacted by this proposed development. We heartily agree with
the following, which succinctly tells the whole of our thinking. We can't say it any
better. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not let this development move forward.
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
-----------------------------
The rest of my post today is to make you aware of areas of concern for the Roaring
Fork Valley:
1. WATER - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have
seemingly regular wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577
multi-million dollar large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL
with snow making capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to
be peppered all over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same
aquifers and tributaries that your water well draws from.
2. TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece
of heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to
enter and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder
River Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those
577 big houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course
workers and all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and
down through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red
Canyon Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.)
will have to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction,
CR 114 would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an
emergency (like the Grizzly Creek Fire), a large part of our community potentially has
to get out the same way, down that one road.
3. WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of
wilderness in our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult,
but the elk herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and
smaller critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
4. OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but
also subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and
the deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? What
will all of those people and all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will
be good? I'm going to leave it at that.
/s/ Jerry and Joyce Kauffman
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 8:54:17 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Development
Name: Kris Shannon
Email: kristin_shannon@ymail.com
Phone Number: (919) 345-5153
Message: Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley
Ranch property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of
life, please do not let this happen!
-----------------------------
The rest of my post today is to make you aware of areas of concern for the Roaring
Fork Valley:
1. WATER - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have
seemingly regular wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577
multi-million dollar large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL
with snow making capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to
be peppered all over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same
aquifers and tributaries that your water well draws from.
2. TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece
of heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to
enter and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder
River Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those
577 big houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course
workers and all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and
down through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red
Canyon Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.)
will have to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction,
CR 114 would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an
emergency (like the Grizzly Creek Fire), a large part of our community potentially has
to get out the same way, down that one road.
3. WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of
wilderness in our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult,
but the elk herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and
smaller critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
4. OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but
also subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and
the deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? What
will all of those people and all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will
be good? I'm going to leave it at that.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 6:52:03 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Heather Conlan
Email: hcconlan@comcast.net
Phone Number:
Message: My husband and I have many concerns regarding the massive number of
homes planned for the Spring Valley Ranch location.
The water usage ( limited and drying up),
Fire extreme danger,
(Access to leave/enter the RF Valley if disasters)
Wildlife impacts (which Are many reasons for our desire to live in this incredible valley
- what space will these animals have left to roam and breed And Live!!)
Traffic Nightmares up and down all of Rt 82
Increased Accidents and deaths on roads
We are from the East Coast originally, and understand large numbers of people,
never thought this valley would consider having such a large volume development
that would impact so many different areas???
Change happens, we understand totally,
But this is too many dwellings!!!
Too drastic of an impact on this beloved area!!
Please reconsider numbers!!
Thank you!!
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 12:28:58 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Development
Name: Justin Seymour
Email: jjframing@msn.com
Phone Number: (970) 618-7410
Message:
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
-----------------------------
The rest of my post today is to make you aware of areas of concern for the Roaring
Fork Valley:
1. WATER - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have
seemingly regular wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577
multi-million dollar large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL
with snow making capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to
be peppered all over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same
aquifers and tributaries that your water well draws from.
2. TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece
of heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to
enter and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder
River Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those
577 big houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course
workers and all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and
down through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red
Canyon Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.)
will have to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction,
CR 114 would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an
emergency (like the Grizzly Creek Fire), a large part of our community potentially has
to get out the same way, down that one road.
3. WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of
wilderness in our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult,
but the elk herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and
smaller critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
4. OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but
also subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and
the deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? What
will all of those people and all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will
be good? I'm going to leave it at that.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 12:25:33 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Development
Name: Barb Hurwitz
Email: littlecreekranch@sopris.net
Phone Number: (970) 618-9971
Message:
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
-----------------------------
The rest of my post today is to make you aware of areas of concern for the Roaring
Fork Valley:
1. WATER - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have
seemingly regular wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577
multi-million dollar large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL
3/2/24
with snow making capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to
be peppered all over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same
aquifers and tributaries that your water well draws from.
2. TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece
of heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to
enter and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder
River Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those
577 big houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course
workers and all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and
down through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red
Canyon Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.)
will have to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction,
CR 114 would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an
emergency (like the Grizzly Creek Fire), a large part of our community potentially has
to get out the same way, down that one road.
3. WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of
wilderness in our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult,
but the elk herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and
smaller critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
4. OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but
also subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and
the deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? What
will all of those people and all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will
be good? I'm going to leave it at that.
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 11:08:40 AM
From: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:01 AM
To: littlecreekranch@sopris.net
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Hi Barb
Thank you for your email, I will forward it on to Community Development
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 9:43 AM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Development
Name: Barb Hurwitz
Email: littlecreekranch@sopris.net
Phone Number: (970) 618-9971
Message: Please take into serious consideration the approval of the proposed Spring
Valley Development. Most importantly is the water issues we are currently facing here
in the valley. A development of this size would greatly impact the water table.
There is very little open space left for wildlife. Building over 500 homes, a golf course
and a ski area would cause a serious impact on wildlife as well.
There have been an increase in serious accidents at the intersection at Thunder River
and highway 82 including fatalities. County Road 115 to County Road 114 and then
on down to 82 would be the primary route for all of the traffic from the proposed
Spring Valley Development.
Thank you for taking the time to weigh all of the facts and make the long term
3/26/25
decision that will be best for the county and our residents,
Barb Hurwitz
8240 County Road 115
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Sunday, March 3, 2024 12:20:36 PM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Proposal by Storied Development
Name: Maureen Rothman
Email: trl@sopris.net
Phone Number: (970) 319-0261
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life this is
the worst proposal possible for this area. I implore you to please do not let this
happen and deny this proposal!
From:Tom Jankovsky
To:doug.greenholz@gmail.com
Cc:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Sunday, March 3, 2024 11:21:47 AM
Doug thank you for your email, I will forward it to Community Development
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 6:28 PM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Doug Greenholz
Email: doug.greenholz@gmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 868-8211
Message: Dear Mr. Jankovsky,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
I have worked in the field of property development for 35 years, and I strongly believe
that it is critical that all development be done responsibly. From what I have learned
,this proposal is far from a far cry from responsible. I urge you, in our role, to lead for
the benefit of all county residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
3/3/24
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry; Heather MacDonald
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Monday, February 3, 2025 11:25:54 AM
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 9:56 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Subject: Spring Valley
Name: Doug Greenholz
Email: doug.greenholz@gmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 868-8211
Message: Dear Mr. Hartman -
I have written you previously about my opposition to the proposed Spring Valley
Development. Now that there is a new hearing date, I wanted to reiterate my position.
I've been in the development business since 1989 and have an ability to see and
appreciate more than one side of a proposed project. No matter what lens I use, I
consistently come to the conclusion that the proposed Spring Valley project is wrong
for this location. It is ill conceived and does not enhance the community in any way.
While there are many aspects that create an imbalance between resources used to
benefits (water, roadways, traffic, egress, etc.), the proposed ski area on a south-
facing slope is an excellent metaphor about how poorly this project considers the
local environment. I strongly suggest you put an objective lens on this proposed
project and recommend denial by the commissioners.
Thank you for your consideration.
2/3/25
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Sunday, March 3, 2024 8:58:09 AM
Subject: development
Name: Bernhard Donaubauer
Email: bedofoto@earthlink.net
Phone Number: (970) 948-6057
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Sunday, March 3, 2024 1:41:15 PM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Art Rothman
Email: ahr@rof.net
Phone Number: (970) 319-0260
Message: Mr. Hartmann,
Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD for the Spring Valley Ranch
property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife and our quality of life,
please do not let this happen!
I try to be objective and suppress any NYMBY based feelings when evaluating area
developments.
Living due east of Spring Valley in the Garfield portion of Missouri Heights I must
consider the impact of this huge proposed development on my home and life.
WATER - IS CONCERN #1. A few houses in my neighborhood already do not have
sufficient ground water and must truck in water. I realize that Garfield County does
not oversee water & well permits but it is essential that the county administrators
become aware of the desperation already existing here. I have advised the Assessor
of the impact this water scarcity has had on property values to no avail. -Ranch to
Golf conversion is truly insane! Humans can't eat grass so what will we do if food
producing land is endlessly converted to golf courses?
The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have seemingly regular
wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577 multi-million dollar
large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL with snow making
capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to be peppered all
over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same aquifers and
tributaries that your water well draws from.
2 TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece
of heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to
enter and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder
River Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those
577 big houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course
workers and all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and
down through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red
Canyon Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.)
will have to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction,
CR 114 would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an
emergency (like the Lake Christine Fire), a large part of our community potentially has
to get out the same way, down that one road. Has the developer considered that
these multi-million dollar homes may not be able to get home owners insurance? I
have witnessed insurance companies refuse to insure property in eastern Garfield
County! Should it become available it would have to be subsidized by massive rate
increases to existing homes so as to "spread the risk."
3.WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of wilderness
in our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult, but the elk
herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and smaller
critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but also
subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and the
deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? Local
businesses which already can't find enough employees will close when they can't
compete with the wealthy homeowners for workers! What will all of those people and
all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will be good?
I DON'T!
Arthur Rothman
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Sunday, March 3, 2024 3:36:05 PM
Subject: Storied Development plan
Name: Glen Hartman
Email:
Phone Number:
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann, Storied Development has submitted an amended PUD
for the Spring Valley Ranch property. Due to the huge impact on water, traffic, wildlife
and our quality of life, please do not let this happen! -----------------------------
To make you aware of areas of concern for the Roaring Fork Valley:
WATER - The western slope is drying up. Aspen groves are dying, we have
seemingly regular wildfires and wells are running dry. This development has 577
multi-million dollar large homes, two private golf courses AND A PRIVATE SKI HILL
with snow making capability. There are multiple high volume water wells planned to
be peppered all over the new development that will be pulling directly from the same
aquifers and tributaries that your water well draws from.
TRAFFIC - This project is huge and will take many years to construct. Every piece of
heavy equipment, dump truck, materials delivery and construction worker has to enter
and exit through that messy little intersection of 82 and CR 114 at Thunder River
Market. After the development is complete, all of the people that live in those 577 big
houses along with their housekeepers, nannys, lawn people, golf course workers and
all the support staff for the whole operation will also have to drive up and down
through that intersection and right up past CMC to the entrance off of Red Canyon
Road. The developer says the road (CR 114 and parts of Red Canyon Rd.) will have
to be expanded and the intersection improved. After years of construction, CR 114
would become a 5 lane wide major thoroughfare. Even then, in case of an emergency
(like the Grizzly Creek Fire), a large part of our community potentially has to get out
the same way, down that one road.
WILDLIFE - This 6000 acre parcel is one of the last untouched pieces of wilderness in
our area. Trying to imagine or calculate the impact on wildlife is difficult, but the elk
herd and mule deer along with their predators and most of the coyote and smaller
critters will be displaced, and will die or leave.
OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - This last one is in many ways the most important, but also
subjective. This development is affluent. Each lot costs two million dollars and the
deed restrictions require very large $4M-$7M homes. The golf courses are private
and so is the ski hill. The large number of wealthy homeowners will attract and
employ a LOT of people. Do we need any more people? Glenwood Springs will
change. Carbondale will change. El Jebel will change. How will they change? What
will all of those people and all of that money do to our piece of the valley? Think it will
be good? I'm going to leave it at that.
Thank you for your help.
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:06:00 AM
Subject: Storied Development Spring Valley Proposal
Name: Ryan Sweeney
Email: sweeney.zg@gmail.com
Phone Number: (847) 707-1724
Message: I ask you to please not seriously consider the Spring Valley proposal. Our
small county roads in this area don't have anywhere near the capacity to handle the
construction traffic nor the employee and homeowner traffic once the project is
complete. This is a rural area and doesn't have the resources for anything even close
to the scale of what's being proposed. Thank you for your consideration.
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
Spring Valley Ranch, the Georgia-based “Storied Development “ is seeking approval for
a reworked 577- home private golf community located in the hills southeast of
Glenwood Springs. This development is high density and the concept of an 18 hole golf
course in this arid landscape is laughable. Water, traffic and wildlife are the three
serious concerns for this development.
I have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for over 47 years. During that time I have
witnessed different developments acquiring acreage, then spreading across our open
space lands. Our valley’s natural wildlife habitats have been devastated as humans
planting their flags in a zealous desire to “own” property. These real estate acquisitions
and developments are not about maintaining a quality of life, but rather about making
money.
Let’s face it, high end large houses that are built around golf courses are most often
bought by wealthy second home owners, who also are not truly invested in the local
communities.
WATER -
The Spring Valley Development is proposing an 18 hole golf course in an arid, high
prairie environment. Yes, Spring Valley may have irrigation water, however large
amounts of water and chemical fertilizer would be necessary to maintain verdant
fairways and putting greens. Chemical fertilizers applied to golf courses cause water
run-off pollution. This affects the essential water aquifers, local residents’ wells and
people’s health. I live on the East side of Missouri Heights on a small property with three
sources of water. One source is a well. The second source is ample shares from the
Fender Springs 1 & 2, and the third water source comes from A & B shares from the
Missouri Heights Mountain Meadows Irrigation Company. My well was dug deeper prior
to me purchasing my property in 2014.
Fact - Many neighboring land owners in this area have had to dig wells deeper for their
water.
Neighbors surrounding Spring Valley Ranch fear that their wells may go dry because of
the ranch’s intense water use, forcing them to dig deeper wells.
WILDFIRES –
Our local high prairie landscapes are consistently known for high heat and drought in
August, followed by cold winters locked in ice with frigid winds. The history of annual
summer wildfires is well documented. Once started, these fires are spread by strong
winds across Missouri Heights to Glenwood Springs. In 2020 the Grizzly Creek Fire
raged in the Glenwood Canyon and traveled over the ridge towards and near to Spring
Valley Ranch. In 2023 another wildfire burned close to Spring Valley on north west
Missouri Heights above Coulter Creek Ranch. Our precious water must be conserved
for true agricultural purposes, fire protection, and human consumption, not for human
recreational enjoyment for a golf course.
TRAFFIC –
At this time, Colorado Mountain College, (CMC), Rivendell Sod Farm and the current
low density residential homeowners generate traffic on Road 119 (Spring Valley Road)
and County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road). Now consider the additional traffic created
by constructing 557 houses. Then add 557 new property owner’s cars, caretaker’s and
service vehicles, which will include garbage trucks, cleaning service vehicles, golf
course employee and maintenance vehicles, golf club food and beverage worker
vehicles, food concession supply vehicles, and if open to the public, then add cars for
the golfers using the course. These new development activities will change the
peaceful, quiet character of Spring Valley forever.
WILDLIFE –
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) considers the 6,0000 acre of Spring Valley
Ranch to be a critical wildlife habitat. Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) are guardians working to protect and preserve our natural
wildlife habitat for generations to come.
A CAUTIONARY TALE –
I will tell you a story. I grew up on an 1,800 acre farm property in the Lehigh Valley,
Catasuaqua, Pennsylvania. My brother and I rode our horses around the two track dirt
roads between corn field, hay fields and the pastures where cattle grazed. In 1997 the
local ABE Airport took the back of our family farm through adverse possession wanting
to extend the airport footprint. A lawsuit ensued. In 2011 the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania ruled in our family’s favor, but the airport took years to pay what was
required and we still lost our land anyway. Eventually, the airport sold the land to the
Rockefeller Group, who has now put the largest Fed Ex hub on the East Coast next to
my family’s land.
The city developing and surrounding my family farm has now forced us to sell our land
to developers. We could not hold on to the land. As a child I saw open spaces with
farms peppered throughout our valley and along route 22, which was the way we would
drive from our home to NYC for what my mother called “some culture.” Now those
connecting highways are engorged with developed cites on both sides of the routes
leading from Boston to NYC and on down the East Coast.
Every development was approved and now any remaining open spaces are in jeopardy
of becoming “suburbia.” When suburbia is connected, these areas become” cities.”
CONCLUSION -
As go our open spaces, so goes the elimination of our wildlife habitats.
Think about the 577- home private golf community built on a 6,000 acre critical wildlife
open space area. What severe impacts will this have on our dwindling wildlife herds of
elk and deer. The golf course will replace our natural high prairie environment. The
native wild flowers, prairie grasses and all the small birds and ground creatures that
depend upon this habitat will be removed. In good conscience, Garfield County must not
approve this totally out of character, money driven, wrongful development in Spring
Valley.
Please do the right thing and advocate for our local citizens, our water quality and keep
this peaceful open space land for the wildlife and humans alike. The tax revenue
generated from this endeavor can never make up for the loss of this precious natural
area.
Respectfully Submitted,
Holly Fuller McLain – Long time Roaring Fork Valley resident, Carbondale, CO
Dear County Commissioners,
I am writing to you with a deep concem regarding the proposed Spring Valley Ranch development project that
threatens our local environment, community, transportation, and fire risks. As a resident of this Elk Springs and
a sustainability scientist, I am deeply committed to preserving the natural resilience and remaining ecological
diversity that make this place one of the last remaining rural places in the valley. Our valley is changing fast,
and this development is an egregious error in planning for the future.
The proposed Spring Valley Ranch not only impact wildlife and habitat islands for overwintering and
migration, but it will also negatively impact the resilience of the ecosystem in our warming climate. Climate
planning is clearly not a part of this plan. If it were, there would not be ludicrous concessions for a ski hill and
golf course, let alone hundreds of units of luxury homes - all of which require water and infrastructure resources
that is fragile at best today.
Many of us in Elk Springs have already lost our home insurance from national providers like Progressive due to
fire risk. This is legal on the part of insurers - and expected to increase in Colorado as it has in other states like
California. Fire risk is high in this area and is going to remain high or el'en increase as we have u'armer years.
There is no mention in the proposed plans for realistic climate scenarios related to such extensive landscape
change, let alone externalities like insurance.
Landscape alteration at this scale means more fires. Increasing development inevitably brings in invasive,
volatile weeds through imported soil, building and landscaping materials, and disturbing landscapes. This
creates an opportunity for invasive grasses, like highly flammable cheat grass for example, to get a foothold.
We are currently fighting this species and other nonnative weeds and grasses that increase fire intensity,
propensity of fire to spread when inflamed, and over time, to alter landscapes to be more fire prone. Scraping
the remaining farmland, grassland, and forests destroys what little resilience these landscapes offer today.
It is with this in mind that I implore you to take immediate action to halt the Spring Valley Ranch plans.
Residents like me are appalled at the green light that has been granted to this development for ffi&ny, many
reasons.
I find the fire and habitat consequences to be top of mind for many of my friends and neighbors. I am sure many
residents will mention related concerns such as the sub-standard maintenance of Spring Valley Road, the fire
escape/evacuation route impacts, the woefully shortsighted water estimates of this plan, a SW facing ski hill(?),
the traffic and the staggering changes to one of the last remaining refuges in the valley for non-millionaires who
value this place.
The proposed project jeopardizes the health and well-being of our community for generations to come. The
unchecked expansion l{{ll lead to irreversible damage and leave residents at higher risk.
I urge you, as elected representatives entrusted with the stewardship of our county, to listen to the concerns of
your constituents. Please reconsider the approval of this destructive development and explore alternatives that
uphold our shared values of community well-being.
Claudia Capitini, MSc. MMA, CEM. Elk Springs Resident
L,
&Id,.,
\'torc\^. ?
f. al-
*;-"..,S
1
March 24th, 2024
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield Senior Planner Philip Berry ,
My name is Simon Hambidge and I am a resident who lives up at the top of Red Canyon on Heather
Lane. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my concerns for the
proposed sale and development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
There are many reasons why this sale/development should not be allowed to be approved. Some of the
main key points of concern are summarized below:
1. WATER:
Water is one of the main and biggest reasons. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors
is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent
winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been water shortage
experiences during the summer months, that have affected not only homesteads in this area
but also the livestock and wildlife have been affected.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general store, a
fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would
significantly affect the water sources.
2. FIRE:
There would be an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in
the area. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads (due to construction or daily
commuting or random traffic), then this could cause a problem with roads becoming
blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, as well as first responders being
able to safely access the area. Having these additional structures so close to each other
would create more fire fuel and make it more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to
the current landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 3 accessible emergency
routes, without any additional traffic.
3. TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would affect
many of the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses
around the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, that it would affect
not only County Road 114 but also, County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110,
and different road routes that go through Cattle Creek and over towards Missouri Heights
and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create more dust,
pollution and noise, that this rural area is not meant to have or endure. There would be a
significant increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is already having
many problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would
2
increase to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction
traffic that will take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
4. WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area for
the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration
routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs,
High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the high
mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them out temporarily.
There are a significant number of deer that have also created a home all throughout Spring
Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still
live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their
territory for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact on wildlife
and would make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by
traffic. They would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate
their needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley Ranch would
have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development would not benefit the
community or the county, it would be taking away from local businesses and the small town mountain
charm we have. It would also not be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
My wife and I are in the process of retiring and having our rural home transformed by this massive
development would have a large impact on our quality of life, and likely force us to look elsewhere for a
home. I think many of our neighbors fell the same way.
Thank you for your consideration and for your work for Garfield County,
Simon Hambidge
486 Heather Lane
GWS 81601
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Friday, April 5, 2024 8:31:16 AM
From: John Martin <jmartin@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 4:32 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: FW: Garfield County website inquiry
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2024 3:38 PM
To: John Martin <jmartin@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Development
Name: Simon Hambidge
Email: simonhambidge@comcast.net
Phone Number: (303) 859-9267
Message: March 24th, 2024
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Commissioner John Martin,
My name is Simon Hambidge and I am a resident who lives up at the top of Red
Canyon on Heather Lane. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County
Commissioners office, with my concerns for the proposed sale and development
proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
There are many reasons why this sale/development should not be allowed to be
approved. Some of the main key points of concern are summarized below:
1. WATER:
Water is one of the main and biggest reasons. This proposed development would
have a catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of
the main factors is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years,
with inconsistent winter months to help with the water levels. There have already
been water shortage experiences during the summer months, that have affected not
only homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife have been affected.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general
store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are
proposing, would significantly affect the water sources.
2. FIRE:
There would be an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another
fire in the area. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads (due to
construction or daily commuting or random traffic), then this could cause a problem
with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, as well
as first responders being able to safely access the area. Having these additional
structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it more difficult
to control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring
Valley already has only 3 accessible emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
3. TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would
affect many of the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and
businesses around the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable,
that it would affect not only County Road 114 but also, County Road 115, County
Road 119, County Road 110, and different road routes that go through Cattle Creek
and over towards Missouri Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road
usage increase would create more dust, pollution and noise, that this rural area is not
meant to have or endure. There would be a significant increase in traffic that would
also affect Highway 82, which is already having many problems with the volume of
traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to 5,700 trips a day on
County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will take place for
the proposed 10-12 years.
4. WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area
for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their
migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout
Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have
also been returning to the high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek
Fire had pushed them out temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that
have also created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as
well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley,
Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory for feeding and
breeding. This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it
extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They
would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their
needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring
Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This
development would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away
from local businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not
be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
My wife and I are in the process of retiring and having our rural home transformed by
this massive development would have a large impact on our quality of life, and likely
force us to look elsewhere for a home. I think many of our neighbors fell the same
way.
Thank you for your consideration and for your work for Garfield County,
Simon Hambidge
486 Heather Lane
GWS 81601
From:Elizabeth Bayliss
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Proposed Spring Valley Development
Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 5:39:11 PM
You don't often get email from baylissea@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Dear Mr. Berry,
My name is Elizabeth Bayliss and I am a resident at 486 Heather Lane in Glenwood Springs. I am
writing to you in your role as Senior Planner for Garfield County with my concerns about the
proposed sale and development of Spring Valley Ranch.
There are many reasons why this sale and subsequent development should not be approved. Some
of the main key points of concern are summarized below:
WATER:
o The proposed Spring Valley Ranch development would have a catastrophic effect
on water availability in the area. Existing property owners rely on well water which is
already tenuous and variable. There have already been summer water shortages
affecting residential and livestock use. This means that even partial development
risks water supplies for existing residents. Further stressing the water table in the
area with any of the proposed development would jeopardize household water for
current residents.
Glenwood Springs has been a statewide leader in anticipating water needs for the
town (e.g., the recent negotiations around Shoshone water rights). Disallowing the
Spring Valley Ranch development would be equally forward thinking and proactive
for local residents, livestock, and wildlife.
FIRE:
o The town and Spring Valley “got lucky” with the superb management of the
Grizzly Creek fire several years ago. Spring Valley was used as a primary camp for the
Hotshot Crews and enabled them to access the Lookout Mountain burn edges and
work on containment. However, there is plenty of remaining wildfire fuel on
Lookout. If there were another fire in the area, the proposed development would
prevent easy access for crews, make fire control much more difficult, and impede
evacuation. Spring Valley already has only 3 accessible emergency routes, without
any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC:
o None of the existing roads in Spring Valley (CR 113, 114, 115, 119, 110) can
support the increase in traffic that would result from the proposed development.
These routes access Cattle Creek, Missouri Heights, Lookout Mountain, Cottonwood
Pass, among other routes. The road usage increase would create more dust,
pollution and noise. The increase in traffic would also affect Highway 82, which is
already overburdened. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to
5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic
that will take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
WILDLIFE:
o Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration routes that run through
Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch
and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the high mountains
of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them out temporarily.
Many deer range throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as
white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley, Lookout
Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory for feeding and
breeding. Wildlife support the lifestyle people choose when they live in the Roaring
Fork Valley in general and Spring Valley in particular.
· OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ON LOOKOUT
o Glenwood Springs has long been economically supported by residents and visitors
who appreciate the rural resources of the valley – whether hunting, fishing, riding,
hiking, trail running, rafting, birding, hot springs, attending concerts, dining in
restaurants or other activities. The proposed development would destroy much of
the Lookout Mountain wildland for people as well as for wildlife.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley Ranch
would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development would not
benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away from local businesses and the small
town mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent with many sections of the Garfield
County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these perspectives.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Bayliss
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - SVR Public Comment
Date:Friday, April 12, 2024 11:24:24 AM
From: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 10:40 AM
To: steviek6@yahoo.com
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Steve
Thank you for your email, I will forward it on to Community Development
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 7:10 PM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Development
Name: Steve Kuschner
Email: steviek6@yahoo.com
Phone Number: (970) 355-4504
Message: On first glance this is just too big a development for the area. Maybe 30-40
homes on 35 acre lots but 500+ homes and a few thousand trips down 114/82?
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Friday, April 12, 2024 2:10:46 PM
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 2:09 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Paul Burbidge
Email: pburbidge@ranelson.com
Phone Number: (970) 471-9157
Message: Glenn
As an elk springs resident I am not against of for the developemnet but we must do
something about the 82 intersection either way. The up valley turn lane is not near
long enough and I fear every time I get stuck in the inside lae with nowhere to go until
the light turns.
Thanks for all you do.
Paul
4/18/24
Wildfires and emergencies
garco911.com – register
garfieldcounty.net – updates / subscribe
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:44 PM
To: communications <communications@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Website inquiry - Communications
Subject: Opposition to Storied Spring Valley Development
Name: Susi Zedlacher
Email: szedlach@aol.com
Phone Number: (970) 274-1427
Message: Good Morning,
I am writing out of concern regarding the proposed Spring Valley Ranch development,
to which I am adamantly opposed on a number of fronts. As a 3rd generation
Colorado resident, this ranks among the most egregious proposals I have seen. The
detrimental impacts to water, wildlife, traffic and roads, safety, and the very rural
character of our valley cannot possibly be offset by any "benefits" that Storied is
pushing.
Rather than elaborate on each of those concerns, I will just highlight a recent study by
the Roaring Fork Conservancy on Cattle Creek, which will unquestionably be
impacted by this massive development. The confluence of that stream with the
Roaring Fork River is already on Colorado's list of impaired waters. Though the upper
watershed quality is currently excellent,RFC has cautioned that further water
withdrawals could significantly reduce streamflow from irrigation, leading to reduced
dilution which will exacerbate water quality. Storied will demand major irrigation for
residents, 27 holes of golf, and snowmaking for their ski hill. How will pesticides affect
the surrounding land and water? In essence, the gradient of increased land use in the
area from this development will unquestionably impact downstream water quality,
aquatic life stress, and downstream degradation of stream health in Cattle Creek, the
Roaring Fork, and ultimately the Colorado River. Needless to say, the local wildlife
will experience the most immediate effects. Not only will the local elk herd potentially
be displaced from a prime grazing area and lose forage, their very health and survival
will also be threatened by a diminished and important water source.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
5/1/24
Susi Zedlacher
Elk Springs
Priscilla Prohl-Cooper
4350 CounW Road 115
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-274-4632
Pdprohl24@gmail.com
April 18,2024
Garfield County Adminis{ration & Commissioners
108 B* Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
My name is Priscilla Prohl-Cooper. I am a resident who resides at 4350 County Road 115. I am
vwiting to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my slrong opposition to
the proposed development proposal of the Spting Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community. Some of
my concems a-re summa:uedbelow:
1. WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currendy established. One of the main
factors is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with
inconsistent winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been water
shortage experiences during the summer months that have allected not only
homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife. The two years that Spring
Vailey Ranch was filling up their reservoir the spring I rely on was significantly affected.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
qua4tity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize
large quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible .
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a200-acre golf course, a general
store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are
proposing would significantly affect these precious water resources.
2. WILDLIFE:
The SpringValley PUD is located wiftin what the CPW calls the High Priority
Habitat. The CPW's comments in their referral letter states that "this development will
severely fragment and degrade the habitat essential for wildlife". As I understand it the
EIk are considered an umbrella species and protecting them will indirectly also protect
other species. The CPW also state in their referral letler " The loss of over 5,908 acres
of critical elk habitat fiom direcg indirect and cumulative impacts will make managing
to maintain the current elh population challenging". I personally see elk herds in the
spring and fall migrate back and forth from the valley floor to the area where the
developer wants to put the majority of the homes (see attached maps). I encourage
each of you to review the referral letter from the CPW with great attention.
3. FIRE:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the
area today. If there were to be an increase in traflic on the roads then this could cause
a problern with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out
safely, not to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area' Having
these additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and mahe
it more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is
dtere. Spring Valley has only 3 accessible emergency routes, without the additional
tra{Iic.
4.TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area wouid affect
the residents that currently live in the are4 as well as residents and businesses around
the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not only
affect County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110,
and atl of the differentroad routes thatgo through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri
Heights and Coftonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create
more dus! pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, this is simply not something this area
can endure. There would also be a significant increase in traffic that would affect
Highway 82, which already has many problems with the current volume of traJfic' The
developers are indicating that traftic would increase to 5,700+l- trips a day on County
Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will take place for the
proposed 10-12 yea$.
please consider aII of the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley
Ranch will have on the neighboring residents and the county as whole. I think you will see it greatly
outweighs the contributions they could offer. In the developers own words "t}is community is
designed for 2'o homeorvners", which will not benefit our rural community in any way. Spring
VaIIV is very special area and we all have a responsibility to ensure it stays t}is way, we won't get a
second chance.
It would also not be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive
Plan as I understand it.
t
Spring Valley Ranch
"tlOtIo
_{,,
rlhwest
r?nk
I
No
t
I
I
,'Lookout iit,l<,ilntain ParkI
I
I
I
Glen
I
o
,c
tJ
o
ir
U
Garmiry SafeGraph, GeoTechnolggies, I ncJ M ETI/NASA rijSGS,
Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
Elk Production Area
HPHD
Elk severe Winter
Range HPHD
Legend
Elk Wnter
f ConcentrationArea
HPHD
Mule Deer Wnter
I Concentration Area
HPHD
N
A
1
I
E CarfieUCountyParcels
SPRING VALLEY MNCH @ilJd
{BsYl"!1,9.KSTORIED Garlield County,
.t
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 5:33:31 PM
You don't often get email from noreply@formstack.com. Learn why this is important
Subject: Oppose the future Spring Valley Ranch Development by Storied
Development.
Name: Stephanie Hernandez
Email: shernandez2001@hotmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 919-1727
Message: I am writing to complain and oppose the future Spring Valley Ranch
Development by Storied Development. My family is building a permanent home in Elk
Springs and relocating from Denver and fears this development will negatively impact
all the reasons we selected this location and Garfield County.
There are numerous Negative impacts of this new development. To highlight a few;
on wildlife habitat, Land and water resources, transportation infrastructure and the
rural character of Garfield County.
• Displacing wildlife and disrupting deer and elk migration and caving.
• The planned development intends to use 1,000,000 gallons of water per day during
the summer and almost as much in winter for snowmaking on a private ski hill, where
water wells already have reduced water production during dry summers.
• The development with its target market of exclusive second-home owners, may
increase property values and TAXES in an area already facing a critical housing and
labor shortage.
• The average daily traffic count is estimated to increase to up to 5703 new vehicle
trips/weekday. This will exacerbate serious safety concerns on Highway 82 and the
intersections at County Roads 110/113, 114, and 115, as well as cause wear and tear
to roads.
• In addition, Country Road 114 is the primary evacuation route when another wildfire
occurs in the Spring Valley area, and this development will create congestion and
significant safety issues in the event of an evacuation.
• It will ruin the rural character of the county and the reason so many of us have
chosen to live there.
• Another ski mountain is not needed when there are already 5 in the area. That is a
total waste of resources for selfish needs.
• The golf course will create run off chemicals into the ground water and our water
resources and create contamination to residents and nature.
• Light pollution will occur, destroying the serenity that we had hoped to enjoy by living
in the area and living among low lighting regulations.
I beg that you take these negative impacts under consideration by concerned citizens
and prohibit the planned Spring Valley Ranch Development by Storied Development.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Hernandez
Elk Springs
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Tuesday, April 30, 2024 11:17:43 AM
From: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 6:23 PM
To: solsen9610@gmail.com
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Hi Siri
Thank you for your email. I will forward it on to Community Development.
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 1:02 PM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Development Proposal
Name: Siri Olsen
Email: solsen9610@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 309-1413
Message: Dear Commissioner Jankovsky:
I am writing in opposition to the new Spring Valley Ranch development proposal. I
acknowledge the presence of old development rights on the property which are
equally concerning and which I think need to be changed. I oppose this development
for the following reasons:
1. Potentially negative impact on water rights in the surrounding areas. Ranchers and
homes in the immediate vicinity will be most acutely affected, and many have
apparently already had to drill their wells deeper in recent years. Tapping into the
aquifer will also affect water for the entire surrounding area. Given the dire long term
outlook for water in the west, should we really be encouraging more golf courses?
2. Impact on traffic. The addition of this many homes will overwhelm the road up to
CMC. It is a narrow, windy road that can be treacherous in the winter. The potential
impact on the intersection with Highway 82 is hard to overstate. This is already a
dangerous intersection and numerous accidents have occurred there in recent years.
Adding this amount of additional traffic will overburden the infrastructure . At a
minimum, substantial changes will need to occur at that intersection to handle the
additional traffic and make it safe.
3. Wildfire Risk. Further development in areas such as this add to the risk of wildfire.
If a fire does occur in the area, how will residents safely evacuate? We must
recognize the limits of Highway 82 and I70 as safe evacuation routes as we continue
to add more population in the valley. Will Cottonwood pass actually get developed in
a way so as to be usable as a safe alternate evacuation route?
4. Loss of Rural Character and Habitat. This development is located in a beautiful
area which is home to extensive wildlife. At what point do we finally ask whether
protecting such areas should outweigh the right to develop endlessly? Our valley is
developing so rapidly that I fear soon we will no longer recognize it. This is the exact
type of land we should be protecting rather than developing.
5. Character of Development. Do we really need a fancy lifestyle community for
wealthy second homeowners and another golf course at this point? The affordable
units in the development do not outweigh the destruction that will be caused by
another fancy neighborhood of trophy homes for non residents. The starting point of
the prices for these homes is ridiculous—do we really want to try to be more like
Aspen?
We are at a breaking point in our valley. The amount of development that has
occurred in the last 5-10 years has overwhelmed our carrying capacity. Our roads
cannot handle more traffic. Our healthcare system is overloaded as are some of our
schools and all of our daycare settings. We are in the beginning stages of what will be
a long term fight over water which becomes scarcer with every passing year. We
finally have to start saying no especially to developments that are totally unnecessary
and simply driven by greed and the endless desire to indulge rich peoples’ desire to
have second homes anywhere they want.
Sincerely,
Siri Olsen
4/29/2024
Ga rfi eld County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101"
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
My name is Janae Jochum. I am a resident at 594 County Rd. 110, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. Along
with my husband and my mother and father-in-law, we are writing to the board to express how we all
strongly oppose the proposed development of Spring Valley Ranch located above us. There are several
concerns that this development will create and the consequences will be detrimental adding to current
issues we cannot afford in this valley.
t. Our main concern is that this valley cannot afford more citizens who do not have anything to
offer to the work force. We need housing for people who will be providing services to the
existing citizens. We need the tradesman and professionals who need jobs and housing. We do
not need wealthy people who will not be providing services to our communities.
2. Traffic is already a nightmare. Our roads have become dangerous and we cannot keep up with
all the traffic as is. Not to mention that our county roads cannot handle that kind of traffic,
especia lly construction traffic.
3. Another great concern is the demand for watering unnecessary amenities like golf courses and
ski hills. I know many of the houses run out of water up in those mountains in the dry summers.
This is an obvious reason why a development like this is unattainablel
4. Wildlifeandnaturearehugereasonswhywelivehere. lam4th&5thgenerationofthisvalley
and I feel it is our responsibility to protect as much land for the wildlife as possible!
You all must consider the reasons why we love living herel Please also remember our virtues, values and
quality of life. This company wanting to come in to develop is ultimately for the bottom line, greed and
money. Do they really care about the quality of our life here?l I beg that you support our current citizens
of this community and consider all the above negative impacts. By keeping it real, it will enrich our lives
even more without this development!!! We are available to help fight against this deveiopment in any
way!
Best Regards,
Janae, Kevin, Leslie & Gary Jochum
970-379-2065
Wildfires and emergencies
garco911.com – register
garfieldcounty.net – updates / subscribe
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 3:38 PM
To: communications <communications@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Website inquiry - Communications
Subject: Spring Valley Development
Name: Ron Acee
Email: ron.acee63@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 456-5575
Message: I do not support the Development of Spring Valley by a Georgia
corporation.
1. It would consume way too much water for 2 golf courses and the 577 new homes
proposed.
2. These homes will most likely not be afforby locals, but by investors out of state for
rental income.
3. The current roads would not be able to handle all of the resulting new traffic.
4. Wildlife would have a negative impact.
5. This valley does not need this kind of housing, what we need is affordable housing
for workers with families to be able to support existing businesses.
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Monday, May 6, 2024 8:40:42 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Another one.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 8:36 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Jim Austin
Email: jaustin444@yahoo.com
Phone Number: (970) 945-7668
Message: Questions/ concerns in re Storied application:
-The up-front costs of this project are enormous: supplying a central sanitation system
and tying it to the existing Spring Valley Sanitation District, supplying drinking water
throughout, building a golf course, a ski area, a club house, interior roads, improving
County Rd 114- Hwy 82 intersection, improving (4 lanes?) approximately 5 miles of
County Rd 114, and all other costs necessary to just get the project to be (hopefully)
saleable. Seems like an awful lot of money to spend prior to getting the first dollar of
investment return.
- The ski area is problematic at best. It may be similar in altitude and aspect to
Steamboat Springs, but Spring Valley gets nowhere near the snowfall of Steamboat.
Also, a golf course at that elevation may have a 6-month season. It seems these two
amenities are more of a marketing ploy than realistic assets to the development.
- This is a dry land ranch with no year-round stream, no lakes, no tall, majestic trees,
but with lots of oak brush, service berry bushes, sage brush, some evergreens, and
quite a bit of dead and dying aspen. The two great assets of the ranch are the world
class view of the Elk Range and the open space with its wildlife, its quiet and solitude,
and just its space. That open space goes away with 577 dwellings and the world
class view is compromised. Is developing this particular ranch really a viable business
plan for a high end second home development?
- I don't' believe proximity to Aspen or Snowmass can be considered an asset. The
ranch is an hour and a half or more driving time from those ski areas and concert
venues during morning and afternoon commutes on an increasingly busy 4 lane
highway. And driving to Glenwood even now is a stop and go slog if you wish to have
dinner there.
- I question Storied's claim that the water storage volume of the ranch is equivalent to
Ruedi Reservoir storage area. Our total catchment area is approximately 15.8 sq
miles. No one knows for sure the total aquifer capacity. Ruedi Reservoir holds a lot of
measurable water. Spring Valley has more?
- "Recharge is greater than demand". The Spring Valley aquifer has as existing users
Colorado Mountain College, Auburn Ridge Apartments, Pinyon Pine Apartments,
Rivendell Sod Farm, Elk Springs' 100 (?) homes, Pinyon Mesa's 50 (?) homes, and
another 50 or more scattered single-family dwellings within our catchment area.
Given this existing usage and coupled with our region wide 20 plus year dryer and
warmer than historical norm of rainfall and temps, how can anyone be certain that our
use plus the addition of 577 more homes, golf courses, and ski area can be
accommodated by our aquifer's recharge now much less in our children's or
grandchildren's lifetime.
- Storied assures us that the existing agricultural uses will be maintained and that
there will be no fences permitted within the development. Open range grazing and
seasonal movement of cattle from valley floor winter range to summer range higher
on the ranch and onto the grazing allotments beyond is a current use on the ranch.
New residents will not tolerate cows and/or cow pies on their property or on their golf
courses. I believe cattle on Spring Valley Ranch will soon be history. Storied should
delete that particular "continued use" claim from their presentation.
I just don't think this plan makes sense either for Storied or for Garfield County.
Thank you,
Jim Austin
3726 CR 115
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Monday, May 6, 2024 2:38:05 PM
From: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 2:25 PM
To: jaustin444@yahoo.com
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Jim
Thank you for your email. I will forward it on to Community Development.
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Jim Austin
Email: jaustin444@yahoo.com
Phone Number: (970) 945-7668
Message: Dear Commissioner Jankowski,
In 1978 I purchased a building site from the then owners of Spring Valley ranch, Lyle
and Hal Beattie. In 1979 I built my home there, a home in which I still live. A few years
later, 1984 I believe, the then Garfield County Commissioners approved the ranch's
first PUD. It was an absurd proposal for over 2000 dwelling units, golf course, hotel,
helicopter pad, etc. but it passed. That PUD has been amended and adjusted several
times in the intervening 40 years. This latest proposal now in front of you is, I believe,
the best plan yet. Regardless, however good it is, it is still not appropriate for our
neighborhood. 577 dwelling units is just too much for our rural slice of Garfield
County. Add in a problematic "ski area", a golf course, 26 miles of new residential
roads, other amenities necessary for a high dollar gated second home development,
accessed by 5 miles of two-lane twisty County Road 114 and it simply does not make
sense for Garfield County. I'm actually not sure it even makes sense for the
developer. I ask you to please deny this application.
Thank you,
Jim Austin
3726 CR 115, Glenwood Springs
CO 81601
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Tuesday, May 7, 2024 8:22:41 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Another Spring Valley response.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 4:44 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Anti Spring Valley
Name: Sara Shainholtz
Email: shainholtz@gmail.com
Phone Number: (303) 888-2414
Message:
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
My name is Sara I am a resident who resides in Carbondale. I am writing to the board
of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the
proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood
Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our
community. Some of my concerns are summarized below:
WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main
factors is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with
inconsistent winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been
water shortage experiences during the summer months that have affected not only
homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize
large quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general
store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are
proposing, would significantly affect these precious water sources.
FIRE + SAFETY:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the
area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could
cause a problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get
out safely, not to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area.
Having these additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel
and make it more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current
landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 2 accessible emergency
routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would
affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses
around the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not
only affect County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road
110, and all of the different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards
Missouri Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase
would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not
something this area can endure. There would be a significant increase in traffic that
would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many problems with the
volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to 5,700
trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area
for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their
migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout
Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have
also been returning to the high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek
Fire had pushed them out temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that
have also created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as
well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley,
Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory for feeding and
breeding.
This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it extremely
difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be
forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to
survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring
Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This
development would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away
from local businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not
be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you,
Sara
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Tuesday, May 7, 2024 8:23:14 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Another Spring Valley response.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 7:55 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: I do not support the Spring Valley Development
Name: Courtney Carr
Email: court.carr@gmail.com
Phone Number: (972) 904-2580
Message: My name is Courtney Carr. I am a business owner and resident who
resides at 537 S 2nd Street, Carbondale CO 81623. I am writing to the board of the
Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the proposed
development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our
community. Some of my concerns are summarized below:
1. WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main
factors is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with
inconsistent winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been
water shortage experiences during the summer months that have affected not only
homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize
large quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general
store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are
proposing, would significantly affect these precious water sources.
2. FIRE + SAFETY:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the
area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could
cause a problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get
out safely, not to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area.
Having these additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel
and make it more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current
landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 2 accessible emergency
routes, without any additional traffic.
3. TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would
affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses
around the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not
only affect County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road
110, and all of the different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards
Missouri Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase
would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not
something this area can endure. There would be a significant increase in traffic that
would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many problems with the
volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to 5,700
trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
4. WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area
for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their
migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout
Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have
also been returning to the high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek
Fire had pushed them out temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that
have also created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as
well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley,
Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory for feeding and
breeding.
This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it extremely
difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be
forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to
survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring
Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This
development would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away
from local businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not
be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
I moved to this area and am a business owner because I value our sacred space,
land, and environment. This development will go against everything that has made
The Valley so special to me and our local residents. I strongly oppose the Spring
Valley development that is being proposed
Thank you for your time,
Courtney Carr, DDS
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:18:29 PM
You don't often get email from noreply@formstack.com. Learn why this is important
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Michael Jelks
Email: m.jelks@comcast.net
Phone Number: 7203395250
Message: Hello,
I am writing to oppose the future Spring Valley Ranch Development by Storied
Development. My family is building a permanent home in Elk Springs and relocating
from Denver and fears this development will negatively impact all the reasons we
selected this location and Garfield County.
There are numerous Negative impacts of this new development.
* Displacing wildlife and disrupting deer and elk migration and caving.
* The planned development intends to use 1,000,000 gallons of water per day during
the summer and almost as much in winter for snowmaking on a private ski hill, where
water wells already have reduced water production during dry summers.
* Another ski mountain is not needed when there are already 5 in the area. That is a
total waste of resources for selfish needs.
* The golf course will create run off chemicals into the ground water and our water
resources and create contamination to residents and nature.
* The development with its target market of exclusive second-home owners, may
increase property values and TAXES in an area already facing a critical housing and
labor shortage.
* The average daily traffic count is estimated to increase to up to 5703 new vehicle
trips/weekday.
* This will exacerbate serious safety concerns on Highway 82 and the intersections at
County Roads 110/113, 114, and 115, as well as cause wear and tear to roads.
* Country Road 114 is the primary evacuation route when another wildfire occurs in
the Spring Valley area, and this development will create congestion and significant
safety issues in the event of an evacuation.
* It will ruin the rural character of the county
* Light pollution will occur, destroying the serenity that we had hoped to enjoy by
living in the area and living among low lighting regulations.
Take these negative impacts under consideration by concerned citizens and prohibit
the planned Spring Valley Ranch Development by Storied Development.
Sincerely,
Michael Jelks
Elk Springs
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Tuesday, May 28, 2024 12:32:23 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hello Philip,
Here is another inquiry regarding Spring Ridge PUD.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Save Spring Valley
Name: Elizabeth Donovan
Email: bethfredell@hotmail.com
Phone Number: (760) 264-5263
Message: Hello,
As a Glenwood Springs local I am writing to you in opposition to the Spring Valley
Development. We don’t have the infrastructure in this area to support any more
growth. The traffic is already insane in Glenwood Springs and our cost of living is too
inflated as it is now. The amount of water required to water ANOTHER grassy golf
course should be illegal- especially when the people of Glenwood are only allowed to
water every other day. Not only is Spring Valley a beautiful area that should be
protected, but if it was developed it should be for affordable housing. Thank you for
your time.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Donovan
1116 Colorado Ave
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Tuesday, May 28, 2024 12:28:43 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hello Philip,
Here is another inquiry regarding Spring Valley Ranch PUD.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Concern about Spring Valley Ranch Development
Name: Elise Osenga
Email: 1erudite.person@gmail.com
Phone Number:
Message: Dear Mr. Hartmann,
I have recently become aware of the proposed Spring Valley Ranch (SVR)
Development to be carried out by Storied Development. I am writing to express my
concern as a Garfield County resident with a keen awareness of the limitations and
pressures to our water supply in this region.
Circulating estimates of water use for the SVR development are 440,000 gallons/day
during the winter and 1,000,000 gallons/day during the growing season, the time
when growers and producers most need access to water. I am apprehensive that this
immense level of water use will prove unsustainable over time and may be
devastating for agricultural producers in the Spring Valley area who already face
challenges of water availability during warm drought years.
Considering the scarcity of surface water in the Spring Valley area, most of this water
presumably will be pumped from underground sources. Drops to water tables impact
land areas far beyond the location at which pumping occurs, and the proposed
development could potentially decrease yield for residential and agricultural wells
beyond the geographic footprint of the development itself. Have any studies been
conducted as to regional impacts of this large increase in pumping?
Additionally, the age of water in many aquifers is often very old, with recharge rates
that can take decades or longer. If the aquifer is depleted at a rate faster than it
replenishes (a likelihood considering the ongoing drought in Western Colorado), the
aquifer will eventually run dry and cease to yield. In such a scenario, the residents
and producers of Spring Valley would receive little comfort from any water right
offsets purchased by the SVR development from Ruedi Reservoir. I am not aware of
any infrastructure currently in existence that could transport water from the Roaring
Fork up to Spring Valley, and it is unclear how the offset releases would be
transported up to replace groundwater in the Spring Valley area if needed.
As far as water use and water rights are concerned, I would be curious to know if the
Georgia developers are aware that owning a water right in Colorado does not
guarantee the presence of physical water. You can own a right to stream that runs
dry, and no amount of paper work will cause that water to appear. This is a common
concept out here on the Western Slope, but in my experience, this idea is new to
many of those who live in the Eastern United States.
I strongly urge Garfield County to reconsider approving this extensive development
and potentially calamitous demand for water use in our already water-strapped
county. I understand that some degree of development in the county is desirable and
necessary, but I urge the County to:
(1) consider creating more cautious requirements around new developments of water
use, and
(2) if it has not already been carried out, to require an extensive hydrologic survey for
Spring Valley that calculates available groundwater, identifies groundwater recharge
rates, and characterizes how water tables will change for the entire region
surrounding the development if large-scale pumping occurs.
As it currently stands, I feel that the Spring Valley Development poses a threat to the
viability of the already existing Spring Valley community.
The residents of Garfield county as a whole, especially the already hard-pressed
agricultural community, deserve an approach to development that considers not just
near-term economic benefits, but also long term impacts to the water supply on which
we all depend.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Elise Osenga
You don't often get email from dmh@sustentogroup.com. Learn why this is important
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Thursday, June 6, 2024 12:36:51 PM
From: David Hodgins <dmh@sustentogroup.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 8:11 AM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Re: Garfield County website inquiry
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner -
I appreciate your quick response here.
Dave
David Hodgins
Founder & CEO
+1 970 319 6611
david@sustentogroup.com
La Kretz Innovation Campus
Los Angeles, CA
sustentogroup.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2024, at 5:46 AM, Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-
county.com> wrote:
Hi David
Thank you for your email, I will forward it on to Community Development
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 8:37 PM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Spring Valley Development
Name: david hodgins
Email: dmh@sustentogroup.com
Phone Number: 9703196611
Message: Hello - as a resident of the area, I am writing to express my
deep concern about the proposed development at Spring Valley.
The traffic would adversely impact my community during and after
construction, threaten public safety, and damage the character of the
area.
The water use from a golf course would be irresponsible, and the scale of
the development would place an unsustainable burden on community
resources.
I urge you to require the developer to bring their environmental, traffic,
water, and other studies current, and to re-envision their plan to be one
that contributes positively to the community.
August 26, 2024
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
AAenBon: Glenn Hartmann, Director, and Philip Berry, Planner Ill
Re: PUAA-05-23-8967 Spring Valley Ranch PUD - SubstanBal ModificaBon/ Amendment
Dear Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Berry,
I am a professional member of the Colorado Wildlife ConservaBon Project (CWCP), which is a
collecBon of many of the leading conservaBon organizaBons in Colorado. During the
Hickenlooper AdministraBon I was a member of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission
and Chair for two terms of the Commission. The organizaBons of the CWCP signing below have
authorized me to write to you on their behalf regarding the above-described PUD.
We , the undersigned organizaBons, acknowledge and respect the right of private property
owners to develop their land within applicable law. In fact, the conservaBon community greatly
values the important role of private property owners in the conservaBon of wildlife. Agricultural
owners were the first conservaBonists and played a pivotal role in the preservaBon of elk, deer,
moose, bear, lion, big game in general as well as waterfowl, small game, non-game, and
threatened and endangered species.
There is a long tradiBon in Colorado of cooperaBon between Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW)
and landowners to preserve important habitat for wildlife. CPW maintains many programs to
improve habitat, manage game damage, and foster public and private partnerships to preserve
wildlife while minimizing impacts on private landowners. Without the crucial role of private
landowners, parBcularly around sensiBve winter and calving habitat many species prevalent on
the landscape would disappear as they have in other states.
I was able to aAend one meeBng with the Developer, Storied Living, and local homeowners.
Unfortunately, I have not been invited to further meeBngs despite my request to provide input.
We have been able to communicate with other impacted groups, such as nearby homeowners,
and to review CPW’s two leAers and the Developer’s proposed amendments to its plans
submiAed to you.
The Developer has an extensive record, although it does not include developments in the
unique cultural and ecological environment present in Colorado. We note the Developers
February 27, 2024 changes to adopt some of CPW’s suggesBons and appreciate that willingness
to work with CPW. Nevertheless, we are concerned that most of CPW’s suggesBons have not
made their way into the Developer’s plans.
While many species exist on the property, we are concerned parBcularly about the elk herd. The
property provides criBcal winter range and calving habitat. We would note that the Garfield
County Commission has previously expressed interest in preserving the elk herd and asking
CPW to manage toward that goal. The herd has already suffered some habitat fragmentaBon
from prior development.
We would ask that the PUD applicaBon include all of CPW’s recommenda1ons. We believe that
any development will stress the habitat and wildlife, but the best opportunity to preserve the
wildlife is to incorporate CPW’s scienBfic wildlife management suggesBons.
Should the development not go forward, we stand ready to assist the property owner in
pursuing a conservaBon easement through the organizaBons already acBve in the Roaring Fork
and the working ranch community.
If I can answer any quesBons or provide addiBonal informaBon, please feel free to contact me at
303-717-6133. I would also appreciate the opportunity to address any public hearings on this
maAer and request you keep me posted as to the Bming of such events.
Very truly yours,
John V. Howard, Jr.
From:Richard Rogers
To:Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky; Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch Development
Date:Sunday, September 8, 2024 8:20:21 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from rrogers@cpfallc.com. Learn why this isimportant
I am resident of Carbondale, so I don’t have a direct dog in this fight. But I do want to
weigh in to bring a different perspective than that of the organized opposition to the
proposed new development.
Our valley is in a difficult economic condition. The affluence of Aspen continues to flow
down valley, and even “sleepy” places like Carbondale have become unaffordable to the
vast majority of people. What we need is smart economic development—development
that brings in resources to help make the valley an economically diverse place to live.
While I acknowledge that the proposed development will likely not contain more
affordable housing, do the revenue streams that result from the development help fund
affordable housing projects?
Next, the current residents of the directly affected area appear to have a case of NIMBY.
They have their sanctuary, and don’t seem to acknowledge that they messed with
someone else’s sanctuary to have their own. The county does not have an obligation to
protect them at the expense of a project that would benefit the greater community.
To be clear, I’m neither in favor of nor against the project. My concern is that a relatively
minor number of parties may be unduly influencing a project that might benefit a larger
constituency.
Sincerely,
Richard Rogers
From:Liz Tierney
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Subject:Opposition to Spring Valley Ranch development
Date:Monday, September 9, 2024 3:36:21 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from lizberey@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I am a resident who resides in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County
Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the proposed development proposal of
the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community.
Some of concerns are summarized below:
WATER: Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors
is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter
months to help with the water levels. There have already been water shortage experiences
during the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this area but also the
livestock and wildlife. The two years that Spring Valley Ranch was filling up their reservoir the
spring I rely on was significantly affected.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and quantity
issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize large quantities of
this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible. Adding the additional 577
housing units, as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire station, and a South facing skiing
and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would significantly affect these precious
water sources.
FIRE: There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the
area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could cause a
problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not to
mention the first responders being able to safely access the area. Having these additional
structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it more difficult to
control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already
has only 3 accessible emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC: The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would
affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses around
the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not only affect
County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all of the
different roadroutes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri Heights and
Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create more dust, pollution,
wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not something this area can endure. There would be a
significant increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many
problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase
to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
WILDLIFE: The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the
area for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their
migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk
Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the
high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them out temporarily.
There are a significant number of deer that have also created a home all throughout Spring
Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still
live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory
for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would
make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They
would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to
survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley
Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development
would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away from local businesses
and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent with many
sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. We need to keep our rural
mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time,
Elizabeth Tierney
ffih{
Hh
i-'r
,1 Ll
Hffi
M
m{?^Dm;Es r?'i:ri:k{*; K-,fl H;,.. [i \v; l';t*,
March 29,2025
Dear Garfietd County Commissioners,
My name is Kathy Morary and I am a resident of Etk Springs in Spring Vattey. I am writing to
you today to ask for your deniaI of the proposed sate and devetopment of Spring Vattey
Ranch in Gtenwood Springs.
There are so many reasons why this sate and devetopment shoutd not be attowed to be
approved. I think the main concern is water! There have atready been water shortage
experiences during the summer that have affected homes, livestock and witdtife in this
area and our drought continues. Adding 577 homes with a gotf course, store, etc. woutd be
catastrophic.
There are so many other concerns such as Fire and Safety, Traffic, qual,ity of tife for those
who atready live here, and not to mention the witdlife. We have a Hugh El,k migration route
and many other animats that live here.
I am ptease asking to consider at[ of these negative impacts that this devetopment woutd
have on the area and residents and our great county we live in. Ptease vote against this as it
is not a benefit and woutd be taking away from our smatt-town charm.
I drive daiLy to and from Aspen, and Hwy 82 can't take anymore traffic we are maxed!!!
WE NEED TO KEEP OUR RURAL AREAS RURAL!!!!
Thankyou for your time and consideration,
'htufr.%ryKathy Mdtary U
23 Wood Nymph Lane
Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601
kmorary@gmait.com
4/4/25
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FOR
SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD AMENDMENT
ELK SPRINGS HOA, INC.
September 2024
Prepared by
118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.945.1004
970.945.5948 fax
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
FILE PATH: \\SGM.LOCAL\FILES\PROJECTS\1981\01502\EVERYTHING BUT CADD AND GIS FILES--ELK SPRINGS AND LOS AMIGOS\46-
SPRINGVALLEYRANCHPUDREVIEW\E-REPORTS\SGM\SVR-PUD-COMMENTS-REPORT_FINAL.DOCX
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FOR
SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD AMENDMENT
ELK SPRINGS HOA, INC.
PREPARED BY
MEGAN ORLOFF, PE
BAILEY LEPPEK, PE
DAVID SCHIOWITZ, PG
SGM PROJECT # 01502C.046
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
FILE PATH: \\SGM.LOCAL\FILES\PROJECTS\1981\01502\EVERYTHING BUT CADD AND GIS FILES--ELK SPRINGS AND LOS AMIGOS\46-
SPRINGVALLEYRANCHPUDREVIEW\E-REPORTS\SGM\SVR-PUD-COMMENTS-REPORT_FINAL.DOCX
Table of Contents
1) Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
2) Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2
Hydrogeology Review ............................................................................................................. 2
Water Supply Adequacy and Aquifer Sustainability ................................................................ 3
Water Demand Calculations ................................................................................................... 4
3) Hydrogeology Review ......................................................................................................... 6
Recharge Rate Among Aquifers and Subsurface Geology Not Adequately Considered ......... 6
Direction of Groundwater Flow Not Described ........................................................................ 6
Aquifer Storage Volume Appears to be Overestimated ........................................................... 6
Calculated Recharge Based on Published USGS Rates Shows Significant Risk of Aquifer
Mining..................................................................................................................................... 7
Physical Water Supply Based on Aquifer Tests Not Demonstrated .......................................10
4) Water Supply Adequacy and Aquifer Sustainability ............................................................11
Injury Possible from Unsustainable Aquifer Use ....................................................................11
High Amount of Proposed Use ..............................................................................................11
Climate Data Assumptions Are Questionable ........................................................................12
Findings Are Not Consistent with Nearby More Comprehensive Studies ...............................14
Lack of Information About Landis Creek Senior Water Rights ...............................................14
Impacts of a Dry Period on the Aquifer ..................................................................................15
5) Water Demand Calculations ..............................................................................................17
Review of Land Use and Water Use in the Narrative Report .................................................17
Review of land use, water use, and proposed demand calculations in the PUD Guide ..........17
Water Demand Calculations in the Water Supply and Distribution Plan .................................18
Commercial Demands........................................................................................................18
Potable Irrigation Demands ................................................................................................19
Raw Water Demands for Golf Courses ..............................................................................20
Water Demand Calculations in the Aquifer Sustainability Report ...........................................20
Water Demand from Surface Water Rights and from Groundwater .......................................21
6) Conclusion .........................................................................................................................21
Attachment A: Spring Valley Overview Map ..........................................................................21
Attachment B: Colorado Geological Survey Reports for Quad Maps in Attachment A (Spring
Valley Overview Map) ............................................................................................................21
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
FILE PATH: \\SGM.LOCAL\FILES\PROJECTS\1981\01502\EVERYTHING BUT CADD AND GIS FILES--ELK SPRINGS AND LOS AMIGOS\46-
SPRINGVALLEYRANCHPUDREVIEW\E-REPORTS\SGM\SVR-PUD-COMMENTS-REPORT_FINAL.DOCX
Figures
Figure 1: Excerpt from 2000 Gamba Report ............................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Modified from USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4020 (1) ................... 9
Tables
Table 1: Estimated Recharge Rate to Spring Valley Aquifer....................................................... 8
Table 2: Modified Table 7 from April 2024 Aquifer Sustainability Report - Total Diversions and
Depletions for Spring Valley Developments Based on Decreed Plans for Augmentation ...........12
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
1
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
1) Introduction
Spring Valley Holdings, LLC as the property owner, Storied Development, LLC as the Applicant, and
John Fredericks, LANDWEST as the Representative filed a Land Use Change Permit Application with
Garfield County to request a substantial PUD Amendment with a new Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Guide and PUD Plan Map for a proposed development called Spring Valley Ranch (SVR). Elk Springs
Homeowners Association (HOA) Inc. hired SGM to review the submittal documents for concerns related
to water supply adequacy. This report summarizes technical questions and concerns from SGM
regarding the PUD Amendment on behalf of Elk Springs HOA.
The following documents provided as part of the PUD Application were reviewed in preparation of this
report:
• Narrative Report: “Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Narrative Report” dated March 2023
(revised December 2023 for completeness), prepared by LandWest.
• PUD Guide: “Spring Valley Ranch PUD Guide” dated December 2023, prepared by LandWest.
• Water Supply and Distribution Plan: “Water Supply and Distribution Plan for the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD, Garfield County, CO” dated February 2, 2023, prepared by Roaring Fork Engineering.
• Aquifer Sustainability Report: “Spring Valley Aquifer Sustainability Study” dated April 11, 2024
prepared by Colorado River Engineering Inc.
• Legal Water Supply Letter: Letter from Scott Miller of Patrick Miller Noto, PC to Garfield County
Community Development Department RE: “Water Supply for Spring Valley Ranch PUD –PUD
Amendment Application” dated January 31, 2023.
• Case No. 22CW3009: In addition, Spring Valley Holdings, LLC has filed a Water Court Application
(Case No. 22CW3009) to re‐establish conditional groundwater, surface, and storage water rights
from the Spring Valley Aquifer for the SVR development. SGM has also reviewed the Application
and Proposed Rulings in Case No. 22CW3009.
In addition to those provided with the PUD Application, SGM reviewed the following documents:
• 2000 Gamba Report: Jerome Gamba & Associates, Inc., March 10, 2000. “The Spring Valley
Hydrologic System.” Prepared for Bill Peacher.
• 1990 USGS Report: Robson, S.G., and Stewart, Michael, 1990, “Geohydrologic evaluation of the
upper part of the Mesaverde Group, northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations,” Report 90-4020, 125 p.
• Udall Report: Udall, Bradly, and Overpeck, Jonathan, dated March 24, 2017, “The twenty-first
century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future”, published in Water Resources
Research, Volume 53, Issue 3.
• 2020 Missouri Heights Report: Resource Engineering, May 28, 2020, ““Missouri Heights
Groundwater Monitoring Program” Prepared for the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the
Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Attachment A to this report is an overview map of the Spring Valley Watershed, the SVR
development, SVR wells as described in the Case No. 22CW3009 Application, other nearby
developments, and Elk Springs HOA’s wells, overlaid on geologic mapping from the Colorado
Geological Survey (CGS). The corresponding CGS reports are included as Attachment B.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
2
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
2) Executive Summary
SGM has the following main critiques on the water supply availability analysis for the SVR development:
Hydrogeology Review
1. Recharge Rate Among Aquifers and Subsurface Geology Not Adequately Considered
The Aquifer Sustainability Report assumes SVR can rely on storage throughout the basin,
overlooking the complex interconnected subsurface geology of isolated interconnected perched
aquifers. SVR has not verified whether the transmission rate between aquifers is adequate to
support the proposed demands. Applicant should provide an analysis of the rate of groundwater
flow through aquifer to verify that recharge rate from the upper perched aquifers to the lower aquifers
is sufficient to meet the demands of wells drilled into the lower valley aquifer.
2. Direction of Groundwater Flow Not Described
Applicant does not provide information on direction of groundwater flow, and ignores the substantial
portion of water that leaks out of the aquifer and likely enters the Roaring Fork alluvial aquifer,
according to the 2000 Gamba Report.
Applicant should provide a map of the potentiometric surface throughout the aquifer based on static
water levels and indicate the direction of groundwater flow.
3. Overestimated Aquifer Storage Volume
The Aquifer Sustainability Report appears to rely on all storage throughout the basin (including the
upper perched aquifers) as a resource for balancing dry year depletions. Applicant should not rely
on storage throughout the basin (including the upper perched aquifers).
The Aquifer Sustainability Report assumed specific yield associated with an unconfined aquifer,
however, well logs, and information from the 2000 Gamba Report indicate the aquifer may be semi-
confined to confined. The applicant should reevaluate their analysis based on storage coefficient
values for these conditions. SGM believes applicant has significantly overestimated the storage
available in the various interconnected aquifers, by using this incorrect assumption. Reduced aquifer
storage may reduce the reliability of the aquifer during prolonged dry period.
4. Calculated Recharge Based on Published USGS Rates Shows Significant Risk of Aquifer Mining
Using established recharge rates from the USGS, SGM estimated the aquifer recharge volume to
be 1,432 AF/year, which is 43 AF less than the anticipated 1,475 AF/year of demands from the SVR
development, and 448 AF less than the anticipated 1,920.3 AF/year of demands for all Spring Valley
developments. Based on this analysis, SGM believes that there is a significant risk of aquifer mining
to occur by the proposed development of SVR.
5. Physical Water Supply Based on Aquifer Tests Not Demonstrated
Consistent with Garfield County LUDC Section 4-203.M.1.c, the applicant should expand on the
Physical Water Supply Report to include calculations of aquifer transmissivity and specific yield, and
draw conclusions about the aquifer’s recharge rate, and the ability of the aquifer to sustain the
identified pumping rates in the long-term. The Physical Water Supply Report only included data from
24-hour pump tests, did not provide any long-term data or multiple day tests, and did not provide
any data for monitoring wells to make conclusions about distance vs. drawdown to show how
pumping from SVR wells will impact other nearby wells. Analysis of the pumping data overestimated
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
3
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
the potential aquifer yield because the analysis relied upon a simple specific yield calculation for
each well and did not consider hydrologic conductivity of the aquifer, recovery, and well efficiency.
Water Supply Adequacy and Aquifer Sustainability
6. Aquifer Balance Assumptions Not Adequately Justified
SVR has not justified all elements of the water balance equation in the Aquifer Sustainability Report.
SVR should validate the data and assumptions used for conclusions of aquifer sustainability to be
legitimate.
− The Aquifer Sustainability Report does not address how the aquifer’s ability to recharge would
be impacted by prolonged dry periods (such as 2000 through 2020) or back-to-back dry years.
− Landis Creek flow assumptions are not backed by data.
− The aquifer balance neglects discharge through springs, seeps, and leakage to Roaring Fork
River via the half graben fault described in the 2000 Gamba Report.
7. High Amount of Proposed Use
SVR’s proposed demands are high compared with existing developments, with diversions and
depletions over three times the amount of diversions/depletions for all other developments in the
basin combined. SVR should scale back its irrigation uses supplied by the aquifer (such as removing
the requested golf courses).
8. Aquifer Sustainability Report Findings Not Consistent with Nearby More Comprehensive Studies
The findings from the Aquifer Sustainability Report are not consistent with nearby more
comprehensive studies. The 2020 Missouri Heights Report, a much more thorough and data-backed
study, found the Missouri Heights Aquifer (a nearby watershed with a similar aspect, similar
precipitation trends, and similar elevation, located just several miles south) shows negative recharge
without import water over a ten-year period.
In contrast, the Spring Valley has no imported water. Given the proximity and similarities between
the two basins, SGM questions the findings that the Spring Valley Aquifer has a positive recharge
balance in all conditions, given the Missouri Heights Aquifer shows negative recharge without import
water over a ten-year period, based on a much more thorough and data-backed study.
9. Lack of Information About Landis Creek Senior Water Rights
Consistent with Garfield County LUDC Section 4-203.M.1.d, the applicant should document the
“historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights” for the Landis Creek senior irrigation rights.
10. Potential for Aquifer Mining in Dry Years
SVR has not proven the development’s demands will not cause aquifer mining during extended dry-
year periods. SVR appears to be relying on groundwater storage to sustain demands, which could
lead to drawdown and eventually aquifer mining, impacting other wells. To protect the aquifer from
a mining scenario:
− SVR should commit to measures to be taken during dry years, such as decreased irrigation.
− SVR should commit to a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan that includes specific
actions triggered by pre-established groundwater levels or drawdown thresholds. SGM
recommends an executed agreement with Elk Springs HOA (and other aquifer users) for a
comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan be a condition of approval of this PUD application.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
4
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Water Demand Calculations
11. SGM has identified several issues with the demand calculations for the SVR PUD:
a. Density calculations should not include the 200-acre Pasture District lot for the existing ranch,
as including this skews the remaining proposed density to be lower.
b. Agricultural uses and nursery/greenhouse and gardens, non-commercial are allowed in all Zone
Districts except for Open Space Limited, but demands for these uses are not accounted for.
c. Retail/Wholesale zones allow for Brewery, Winery, Cidery, Distillery use type, but demands are
not accounted for. The Use Type of Brewery, Winery, Cidery, Distillery should not be allowed in
this PUD as this would allow for water produced from groundwater to be exported outside of the
aquifer area.
d. Snowmaking is listed as a use type, but demands are not accounted for. SVR has also not
demonstrated a plan for obtaining a legal or physical supply for snowmaking. The Use Type of
Snowmaking should not be allowed in this PUD. Snowmaking would introduce a high water use
which has not been quantified, and for which SVR has also not demonstrated a plan for obtaining
a legal or physical supply. SGM recommends the applicant would need to return for a PUD
amendment to allow for snowmaking once they can show demand and depletion calculations
and can demonstrate legal and physical water supply for snowmaking.
e. Car Wash is listed as a use type, but demands are not accounted for. Car washes have high
demands. The car wash use type either needs to be removed from the Land Use Schedule or it
needs to be specifically quantified and EQRs set aside for a car wash within the PUD.
f. Golf Courses are contemplated, which is a high water use type. More information is needed to
justify the golf course demands and show that SVR has adequate legal and physical supply to
support this high level of water demand.
12. Golf Course Irrigation
A major component of the SVR development’s high demand is golf courses. Applicant’s proposed
demands for golf courses alone (329 AF annually per the Water Supply and Distribution Plan) are
greater than the buildout demands of Elk Springs, Elk Mesa, Pinion Mesa, Colorado Mountain
College, and Lookout Mountain Ranch combined.
SGM recommends as conditions of approval of this PUD that applicant A) reduce the proposed
irrigated acreage for golf courses to what applicant can demonstrate can be supplied by surface
water supplies and B) irrigate golf courses with surface water supplies only (not groundwater).
13. Limitations on Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs)
The SVR PUD should be held to a strict limit on the commercial EQRs and depletions that can be
eventually developed within the PUD, to ensure that no use types cause SVR to exceed its planned
demand and depletions for commercial uses.
14. Irrigated Area Limits
Numbers from SVR differ regarding the maximum residential irrigation area planned. Additional
information is needed on residential irrigation, including the planned large lots in Mountain District
(5+ acres). Irrigation is a high consumptive use demand, and if irrigation expands beyond what is
contemplated this could have serious consequences. The SVR PUD should be held to strict limits
on allowable irrigated area, both total and for individual residential lots.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
5
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
15. Clarifying Demands
The Aquifer Sustainability Report needs to show the potable demands split between residential and
commercial, between upper and lower areas of the PUD, and split into Planning Areas.
16. Discrepancies in EQR Count
Applicant should clarify discrepancies between the Aquifer Sustainability Report and Water Supply
and Distribution Plan documents, including the total EQR count and domestic irrigation acreage.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
6
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
3) Hydrogeology Review
Recharge Rate Among Aquifers and Subsurface Geology Not Adequately Considered
The Aquifer Sustainability Report refers to the Spring Valley Aquifer as though it is one single
interconnected aquifer. However, the report also acknowledges that the Spring Valley Aquifer is “a
composite of a series of confined aquifers within the sediments overlaying bedrock which produce
artesian wells” described as “hanging aquifers,” or perched aquifers. The report also states: “These
areas are interconnected by subsurface fractures that slowly transmit water from higher elevations to
lower elevations. The upland areas are the primary area of recharge.” The 2000 Gamba Report also
describes this process: “Surface water is channeled into these detention basins or “hanging aquifers”
via the fractured and rubblized surface basalt. Subsurface fractures interconnect the detention basins
and act as restricted conduits that facilitate the slow, but continuous, transmission of water from
those at higher elevations to the ones below.” The Aquifer Sustainability Report does not address
the rate of infiltration between the upland areas (which are the primary areas of recharge), and the lower
aquifers (from which the water for the development will be pumped). The Aquifer Sustainability Report
and 2000 Gamba Report describe the rate of infiltration between the higher aquifers and lower aquifers
as slow, but does not provide calculations of the rate or an analysis of whether this slow transmission
rate will be adequate to replace the high rate of diversions contemplated by SVR. Additional information
should be provided in the form of correlation of well logs and piezometric surface maps to support the
unfounded assumption that the Spring Valley Aquifer acts as a one single interconnect aquifer. The
basis of the recharge calculations relies on this assumption and the large surface area (9,875 acres)
tributary to the SVR. Applicant should provide an analysis of the rate of groundwater flow through
aquifers to verify that recharge rate from the perched upper aquifers to the lower aquifers is
sufficient to meet the demands of wells drilled into the lower aquifer.
Direction of Groundwater Flow Not Described
In addition, no data was provided on water table levels throughout the aquifer and groundwater flow
direction. Applicant should provide a map of the potentiometric surface throughout the aquifer
based on static water levels and indicate the direction of groundwater flow.
Aquifer Storage Volume Appears to be Overestimated
The Aquifer Sustainability Report appears to rely on all storage throughout the basin as a resource for
balancing dry year depletions. The report’s summary states: “In addition to the annual recharge, it has
been estimated by Gamba that there is 68,000 to 105,000 acre-feet of water in storage in the SVA and
upland areas which essentially serve as an underground reservoir to balance extreme dry year and
extended drought-year recharge with water demands.” Upon closer review of the 2000 Gamba Report,
see Figure 1, not all 68,000 to 105,000 acre-feet in storage within the basin is located within the aquifers
from which the SVR wells will be pumping. Approximately half of that storage is estimated within the
upland volcanic areas, and the Aquifer Sustainability Report does not address the rate of transmission
from the upland aquifers. The Aquifer Sustainability Report does acknowledge in the Aquifer
Characteristics section that of the 68,000 to 105,000 acre-feet, much of it is in the upland aquifers and
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
7
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
“38,000 to 46,000 acre-feet is stored in the SVA,” or Spring Valley Aquifer. This does not consider the
fact that the water within the Spring Valley Aquifer is within a series “ash and cinder lenses” which are
“interconnected by subsurface fractures that slowly transmit water from higher elevations to l ower
elevations.”
In summary, the Aquifer Sustainability Report assumes that SVR can rely on storage throughout the
basin, overlooking the complex interconnected subsurface geology of isolated interconnected perched
aquifers. The overview map in Attachment A shows the complexity of the geology. SVR has not verified
whether the transmission rate between aquifers is adequate to support the proposed demands. Without
verifying the transmission rate from the upper perched aquifers to the lower aquifers, applicant should
not rely on storage throughout the basin (including the upper perched aquifers).
Furthermore, this storage volume assumed unconfined conditions with a specific yield (storage
coefficient, S) ranging from 3% to 25%. However, based on review of the 2000 Gamba Report and wells
logs, parts of the aquifer exhibit are confined to semi-confined conditions. This would decrease the
specific capacity by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude (i.e. a factor of 10 to 1,000) and would therefore reduce
the assumed aquifer storage significantly. The Aquifer Sustainability Report should address
confined vs unconfined conditions reported throughout the SVR. SGM finds applicant is
overestimating the storage available in the various interconnected aquifers.
Figure 1: Excerpt from 2000 Gamba Report
Calculated Recharge Based on Published USGS Rates Shows Significant Risk of Aquifer Mining
The Aquifer Sustainability Report estimated that the average annual recharge is 3,942 AF/year (which
is three times the SVR diversion amount) and concludes this is sufficient to keep the aquifer from being
depleted. As discussed in a following section this was estimated using a simple water budget for the
tributary area of 9,875 acres. Using applicant’s estimated 3,942 AF/year, SGM calculated that the
corresponding recharge rate would be 4.79 inches annually. SGM compared this to published
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
8
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
groundwater recharge rates developed by the USGS(1) for varying mean annual precipitation (see
Figure 2). Using the values provided by SVR for geologic areas and mean precipitation, and the
relationship developed by the USGS between mean annual precipitation and groundwater recharge,
SGM estimated the average annual recharge rate for the tributary area to equal approximately 1.74
inches or 1,432 acre-feet per year (see Table 1). The estimated recharge rate based on published
USGS data is substantially lower than applicant’s estimated recharge rate (4.79 inches from applicant
vs 1.74 inches from USGS, and 3,942 AF/year from applicant vs 1,432 AF/year from USGS).
This SGM analysis (showing an annual recharge rate 1,432 AF/year based on published USGS data)
concludes that there is shortfall of 43 AF per year if the proposed development’s demands of 1,475
AF/year (Table 2) were to come to fruition. Applicant provided a table of total diversions from the Spring
Valley Aquifer (provided Table 2 in this report), showing diversions of 1,920.3 AF/year for all Spring
Valley Developments, which is 488.3 AF less than SGM’s estimated recharge rate. Applicant calculated
total annual depletions for the Spring Valley Aquifer at 1,262.8 AF for all Spring Valley Developments
(Table 2), which is approximately 170 AF greater than the recharge rate estimated by SGM. Note that
this assumes that all return flows from the developments return directly to the Spring Valley Aquifer, for
which sufficient evidence has not been provided. Based on this analysis, SGM believes that there
is a significant risk of aquifer mining to occur by the proposed development of SVR.
Table 1: Estimated Recharge Rate to Spring Valley Aquifer
Geologic
Unit
Area
(acres)
Mean Precip
(in)
Estimated Recharge
Rate (inches/year)
Recharge Volume
(AF/year)
SGM Estimates Based on USGS Report*
PPm 2,132 24 2.5 444
Tb 6,290 22 1.7 891
Ql 1,453 19 0.8 97
Total 9,875
1.74 1,432
Applicant’s Estimated Reacharge Rate ** 4.79 3,942
Notes: *Estimated recharge rate (inches) estimated from USGS Report(1), based on mean
annual precipitation for each geologic unit, see Figure 2.
**Compared with estimates of recharge rate provided in Aquifer Sustainability Report.
1 Robson, S.G., and Stewart, Michael, 1990, Geohydrologic evaluation of the upper part of the Mesaverde Group,
northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Report 90-4020, 125 p.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
9
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Figure 2: Modified from USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4020 (1)
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
10
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Physical Water Supply Based on Aquifer Tests Not Demonstrated
SVR has not adequately demonstrated adequate physical supply for the proposed development. SGM
reviewed the report titled “Spring Valley Ranch Physical Water Supply Report” dated 3/8/2023, prepared
by LRE Water (Physical Water Supply Report), which was included as an appendix to the Water Supply
and Distribution Plan report by Roaring Fork Engineering. The Physical Water Supply Report showed
results from pumping tests and drew conclusions about the possible pumping rate of each well.
However, the report did not provide calculations of aquifer transmissivity and specific yield, and did not
draw conclusions about the aquifer’s ability to sustain the identified pumping rates in the long -term.
Each test was only conducted for a 24-hour period and no long-term water table data or multiple day
tests were conducted. Further, the applicant did not provide any data for monitoring wells so distance-
drawdown calculations could not be performed. Distance-drawdown calculations show for a given
pumping rate at a well, how much drawdown would be caused in a neighboring well at a given distance.
In other words, the Physical Water Supply Report does not provide enough information to show how
pumping from SVR wells will impact other nearby wells. Analysis of the pumping data overestimated
the potential aquifer yield because the analysis relied upon a simple specific yield calculation for each
well and did not consider hydrologic conductivity of the aquifer, recovery, and well efficiency.
Per Garfield County LUDC Section 4-203.M.1.c, “the results of the pump test shall be analyzed and
summarized in a report, including basic well data…, pumping rate, draw down, recharge, and
estimated long-term yield.” Consistent with Garfield County LUDC Section 4-203.M.1.c, the applicant
should expand on the Physical Water Supply Report to include calculations of aquifer transmissivity
and specific yield, and draw conclusions about the aquifer’s recharge rate, and the ability of the aquifer
to sustain the identified pumping rates in the long-term.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
11
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
4) Water Supply Adequacy and Aquifer Sustainability
This section documents SGM’s comments on water supply adequacy for the SVR development, based
on our review of the April 11, 2024 Spring Valley Aquifer Sustainability Study prepared by Colorado
River Engineering Inc. (Aquifer Sustainability Report), and water rights documents provided in Case
No. 22CW3009, a Water Court Application filed by Spring Valley Holdings, LLC to re‐establish
conditional groundwater, surface, and storage water rights from the Spring Valley Aquifer for the SVR
development.
At the core of all issues is the potential for unsustainable aquifer use. SVR will obtain its water supply
from the Spring Valley Aquifer, the same source of water used by existing users (including the Elk
Springs HOA).
Following is a summary of questions and concerns SGM has raised on behalf of Elk Springs HOA about
the claims made about water supply adequacy for SVR in the Aquifer Sustainability Report.
Injury Possible from Unsustainable Aquifer Use
If SVR’s proposed uses on the Spring Valley Aquifer are unsustainable, this could reduce water levels
and cause injury to existing water users. When aquifer storage is depleted, it is similar to dropping water
level in a surface reservoir, like Lake Powell or Lake Mead. When an aquifer water table drops, existing
users may need to re-drill deeper wells or rely on hauled water. If a trend of dropping aquifer water level
continues in the long-term, it can eventually result in draining or mining of the aquifer.
High Amount of Proposed Use
The SVR PUD has a very high proposed use compared with existing developments in the area. The
development includes a large amount of irrigated area (including two golf courses), a large amount of
planned pond acreage which will use water by evaporation, and plans for a ski area (SVR has so far
not provided a plan for providing legal or physical supply for the ski area).
The development proposes high diversions and depletions. Assuming all calculations and assumptions
in the Aquifer Sustainability Report are correct, SVR is proposing to divert over one-third of the annual
average recharge available to the entire aquifer, with consumptive use of one-fourth of that estimated
recharge.
The April 2024 Aquifer Sustainability Report included a comparison of demands and depletions for SVR
and other developments in Spring Valley based on decreed plans for augmentation. That table of
diversions and depletions in acre-feet (AF) is shown in Table 2 below, with added percentages for
comparison.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
12
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Table 2: Modified Table 7 from April 2024 Aquifer Sustainability Report - Total Diversions and
Depletions for Spring Valley Developments Based on Decreed Plans for Augmentation
Development Case No.
Annual Diversion Annual Depletion
(AF) (%) (AF) (%)
Spring Valley Ranch 98CW256 1,457.0 76% 974.0 77%
Los Amigos (Elk Springs, Pinyon Mesa, Elk Mesa) 98CW312 159.8 8% 117.0 9%
Colorado Mountain College 99CW99 132.3 7% 53.1 4%
Lake Springs Ranch/Berkeley W-3571 105.2 5% 97.6 8%
Individual Lot Owners N/A 30.0 2% 10.0 1%
Lookout Mountain Ranch 84CW100 36.0 2% 11.0 1%
Sum of All Other Developments 463.3 24% 288.7 23%
Grand Total 1,920.3 100% 1,262.7 100%
As shown in Table 2, SVR’s planned 1,457 AF annually of diversions are over three times the amount
of diversions for all other developments combined. SVR’s planned 974 AF annually of depletions are
3.4 times the amount of depletions for all other developments combined. As planned, the SVR
development will more than quadruple the annual diversions and depletions in the basin.
A major component of this high demand is golf courses. Applicant’s proposed demands for golf courses
alone (329 AF annually per the Water Supply and Distribution Plan) are greater than the buildout
demands of Elk Springs, Elk Mesa, Pinion Mesa, Colorado Mountain College, and Lookout Mountain
Ranch developments combined (see Table 2).
SGM finds this level of demand to be excessive for the Spring Valley Aquifer, given our other concerns
about long-term supply reliability documented throughout this report.
Climate Data Assumptions Are Questionable
The Aquifer Sustainability Report uses a simple water balance equation to calculate the possible
recharge/depletive impacts to the aquifer. The basic concept of the water balance is that water is stored
in the aquifer (recharge) when the water coming into the basin (from precipitation) exceeds water going
out (flowing out through Landis Creek, springs, or evapotranspiration from water used by crops and
native plants). If recharge is greater than the total demands from all the various developments, the
demands are considered sustainable.
This water balance equation is as follows:
𝑅𝑐𝑐�𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑐=𝑃𝑟𝑐𝑐�ℎ𝑛�ℎ𝑟𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑛𝑛−𝐸𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑟𝑛�ℎ𝑟𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑛𝑛−𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑐�ℎ𝑟 𝐶𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑘 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑟𝑟
The Aquifer Sustainability Report concludes the aquifer recharge is sufficient, and the proposed uses
of the aquifer are sustainable. If any part of the water balance equation is incorrect (either from incorrect
assumptions or data that is not representative), the conclusions are not valid.
SGM has significant concerns regarding the assumptions and data used by SVR in the Aquifer
Sustainability Report and therefore questions the finding that the proposed uses are sustainable.
• Period of Study Not Representative
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
13
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
When analyzing the impacts from different water uses over time, engineers must select a period of
record to consider the climatological impacts on the water demands. This is usually a long period
which includes wet, dry, and average years to insure consideration of a range of conditions. The
period of record the engineer for SVR originally considered was from a 2000 report which
considered the years 1951 through 1980. The engineers have since updated this to 1991 to 2020.
The thirty-year period of 1991-2020 contains eight dry years (defined as the lowest 25th percentile
of precipitation), eight wet years (defined as the highest 75th percentile of precipitation), and
fourteen normal years. Since 2000, there has been a long-term drought in place and a general trend
toward drier conditions. The period of 1991 through 1999 contains six of those eight wet years, and
no dry years. The period of 2000 through 2020 contains all eight dry years and only two wet
years. Generally, this selection of thirty years skews the climate data due to the wetter conditions
in the 1990s compared to conditions of the last two decades. This study period of 1991 – 2020 does
not fully capture the impacts of the last two decades of drought to the aquifer recharge. The applicant
should also show how the prolonged dry period of 2000 through 2020 would impact the water
balance.
• Precipitation and Temperature Assumptions Not Explained
In order to estimate precipitation over the Spring Valley drainage, CRE used the PRISM Climate
Group 30-year normal (1991-2020) dataset. This dataset comes out of Oregon State based
Northwest Alliance for Computation Science and Engineering. It is also supported by the USDA Risk
Management Agency. Extensive research and modeling has gone into the creation of this dataset.
The dataset gives a mean annual precipitation value for every 800 square meters across the entire
country.
SGM questions how this dataset was overlaid on the Spring Valley watershed as it appears to be
offset slightly. This offset would cause a slight increase in the mean precipitation.
• Landis Creek Flow Assumptions Not Backed by Data
The Aquifer Sustainability Report uses 600 acre-feet as the mean annual outflow from the Spring
Valley watershed. This number comes from the 2000 Gamba Report, which states “Observations
made by Wright Water Engineers, indicate that the surface flow down Red Canyon will vary from
400 to 600 acre feet per year.” SGM is not aware of any current or historical stream gages on Landis
Creek. Based on our conversations with CRE, this is based on a few observations made by
individuals from Wright Water in the 1990s. It is our understanding SVR has no actual data to
support this number. The Aquifer Sustainability Report points to the 2000 Gamba report which states
Wright Water Engineers estimated this number in the 1990s by unknown methods. The 2000
Gamba report gives no information about how Wright Water Engineers estimated this number
(whether it was measured or “guesstimated” by looking at the stream), what flow was measured (if
any measurements were taken), how many observations were made, and when the observations
were made (what time of year and did the observations include wet, normal, and dry years). Without
actual data, this number is unreliable. As the runoff value is critical to the recharge calculation, a
value backed by data is critical to any conclusion about aquifer recharge.
• Aquifer Balance Neglects Discharge through Springs, Seeps, and Leakage to Roaring Fork River
The water balance did not consider discharge from the aquifer through springs, seeps and
groundwater flow to the Roaring Fork River, which may further reduce the storage assumptions and
change the conclusions reached in the Aquifer Sustainability Report. Gamba’s conclusions noted
this in their report saying that “a substantial portion of the water that enters the system does not
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
14
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
again surface in the system, but, leaks out through fracture systems associated with the half graben
fault on the south side of the Spring Valley aquifer and probably enters the Roaring Fork River valley
gravel aquifer.” Applicant should consider in the water balance these other means for water to leave
the system.
Findings Are Not Consistent with Nearby More Comprehensive Studies
The 2020 Missouri Heights Report is a detailed and peer-reviewed study of groundwater conditions
based on recent data of local precipitation and groundwater level performed by Resource Engineering
for the Basalt Water Conservancy District and the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Missouri
Heights aquifer and watershed is located several miles south of the Spring Valley Aquifer, with a similar
aspect, similar precipitation trends, and similar elevation. Given the proximity and similarities between
the two basins, SGM finds that the 2020 Missouri Heights Report is a useful benchmark for comparison.
One finding in that report is the groundwater in the area is highly dependent on imported water,
especially during dry years. The report concludes “the ditch import water is of significant importance.
Without it, the recharge rate would be negative in most years as the evapotranspiration would exceed
the precipitation (less runoff).” In contrast, the Spring Valley watershed has no imported ditch water to
support the aquifer in dry years.
Given the proximity and similarities between the two basins, SGM questions the findings that the Spring
Valley Aquifer has a positive recharge balance in all conditions, given the Missouri Heights Aquifer
shows negative recharge without import water over a ten-year period, based on a much more thorough
and data-backed study.
Lack of Information About Landis Creek Senior Water Rights
The Aquifer Sustainability Report states some of SVR’s demands (for irrigation and pond evaporation)
will be “satisfied by senior surface water rights” but does not give information regarding these water
rights. Without information about these water rights, it is difficult to understand how often these water
demands would be satisfied by surface water rights and how often pumping from the aquifer would be
needed to cover these demands.
The Aquifer Sustainability Report does not provide an analysis of the availability of these rights in dry
years. Nor does the report provide information about the historical use of these water rights on the
property compared to the future irrigated lands. An availability analysis is provided; however, no
timeframe is given for this analysis.
The Legal Water Supply Letter provides some additional information about these senior water rights,
including the name of these rights. It specifies these include storage rights in the Hopkins Reservoir,
irrigation diversions from Landis Creek (the Kendall and Stricklett Ditch, Landis Ditch Nos. 1 and 2, O.K.
Ditch, Forker and Gibson Ditch, and Frank Chapman Ditch and springs), and three spring water rights
(Hopkins Spring No. 1, Hopkins Spring No. 2, B-R Hopkins Spring). However, neither the Legal Water
Supply Letter nor the Aquifer Sustainability Report provides an analysis of the availability of these rights
in dry years. Nor does SVR provide information about the historical use of these water rights on the
property compared to the future irrigated lands. An availability analysis is provided; however, no
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
15
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
timeframe is given for this analysis. Consistent with Garfield County Land Use and Development
Code (LUDC) Section 4-203.M.1.d, the applicant should document the “historic use and
estimated yield of claimed water rights.”
The Aquifer Sustainability Report shows over 20% of the non-potable irrigation diversion coming from
wells in an average year. Without understanding the timeframe of the diversion records used for this
analysis, it is difficult to understand if there would be sufficient water for irrigation in dry years or if SVR
would need to rely more heavily on well pumping in dry years. Heavy reliance on the aquifer in dry years
could lead to aquifer mining (withdrawing groundwater faster than it can recharge) and impact other
water users.
Impacts of a Dry Period on the Aquifer
• Recharge During Dry Years
SVR does not consider dry-year impact in its Aquifer Sustainability Report. In water supply analyses,
it is typical to consider impacts of wet, average, and dry years. The Aquifer Sustainability Report
only considers the impact to the aquifer in an average year over the study period of 1990-2020.
SGM has questioned what the impact to the reservoir would be in consecutive dry years, such as
conditions from 2012 and 2013. The absence of a dry-year impact analysis calls into question
whether the aquifer will be sustainable during back-to-back dry years.
Peer reviewed studies show the trend in the Colorado River Basin points toward “significant risk of
decadal and multidecadal drought in the coming century” (2017 Udall Report2). With a future
expected to have prolonged drought conditions at times, it is reasonable and appropriate to consider
impacts to the aquifer in wet, average, and dry conditions and especially to understand if anticipated
future dry conditions will negatively affect the aquifer.
• Increased Irrigation Demand in Dry Years
Due to lack of information about the Landis Creek surface rights, there is no indication if the well
pumping may increase in a dry year. As there would likely be lower diversions from surface water,
the SVR may need to pump more water from the aquifer for irrigation in dry years. This could put
further demand on the aquifer in a time of decreased recharge. This could lead to aquifer mining.
The applicant should include dry year demands based on surface water availability analysis of their
senior water rights and should include these demands in their aquifer sustainability analysis.
• Potential for Groundwater Mining
Aquifer mining refers to the practice of withdrawing groundwater faster than it can recharge. Aquifer
mining is an unsustainable practice. SVR appears to be relying on aquifer storage as a part of the
solution. The Aquifer Sustainability Report relies on an estimated existing storage of 68,000 to
105,000 acre-feet within the aquifer as water that can be used in years when recharge does not
meet Spring Valley Ranch’s diversions. This storage volume assumed unconfined conditions with a
specific yield (storage coefficient, S) ranging from 3% to 25%. However, based on review of the
2000 Gamba Report and wells logs, parts of the aquifer exhibit confined to semi-confined conditions.
The 2000 Gamba Report describes “the Spring Valley Aquifer is in fact a composite of a series of
2 “The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future”, dated March 24, 2017,
written by Bradly Udall and Jonathan Overpeck, published in Water Resources Research, Volume 53, Issue 3.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
16
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
confined aquifers in the sediments overlaying the bedrock, and the upper portion of the bedrock,
underlying these sediments, which is itself, a confined aquifer capable of, and demonstrated to
produce artesian wells.”
If Applicant were to consider the confined to semi-confined aquifer conditions, this would decrease
the specific capacity of the aquifer by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude and would therefore reduce the
assumed aquifer storage significantly. Drawdown in a confined aquifer also tends to show a much
larger cone of depression, impacting wells further away than in an unconfined aquifer. The Aquifer
Sustainability Report should address confined vs unconfined conditions reported throughout the
SVR and reduced aquifer storage may reduce the reliability of the aquifer during prolonged dry
period. Over time, reliance on water stored in the aquifer can cause long-term drop in the aquifer
water level and harm others with wells in the area.
• Measures Taken During Dry Years
SGM also questions what measures, if any, SVR would take during a dry year to attempt to decrease
negative impacts. So far, no measures have been suggested. Measures could include:
− decreased irrigation during dry years,
− limitations to irrigated areas,
− modifications to operations during dry years,
− thresholds for operations (like pumping limitations) based on real-time data of aquifer levels.
The plan does not currently include such limitations or measures.
• Groundwater Monitoring Plan with Triggers and Actions
SGM has been advocating for SVR to commit to a groundwater monitoring plan with required actions
based on triggers. The April 2024 Aquifer Sustainability Report does contemplate a groundwater
monitoring plan but does not commit to such a plan. To protect the aquifer from a mining scenario,
SVR should commit to a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan that includes specific actions
triggered by pre-established groundwater levels or drawdown thresholds. Given SVR's confidence
in the aquifer's recharge capacity to support the development, SGM believes committing to these
measures should be a feasible and straightforward step.
SVR has initiated discussions toward a joint groundwater monitoring plan, with other parties who
rely on the Spring Valley Aquifer, including Elk Springs HOA. However, based on initial discussions
it is clear the parties disagree about the approach, and the plan is not complete.
SGM recommends that an executed agreement with Elk Springs HOA (and likely other aquifer
users) for a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan (including trigger-based actions) be a
condition of approval of this PUD application.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
17
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
5) Water Demand Calculations
This section provides SGM’s review of calculations of demands and density for the SVR PUD.
Review of Land Use and Water Use in the Narrative Report
The gross density for the overall development is listed at one density unit (DU) per 10.2 acres, but it
should be calculated without the single 200-acre Pasture District lot, as that includes an existing ranch
house and is not characteristic of the remainder of the development. Inclusion of the 200-acre lot skews
the calculation. The remainder of the development is of a higher density (0.2 to 5 units per acre). The
applicant should provide this updated gross density calculation, as it may not conform with the Future
Land Use Map designation of Residential Low (RL) at one (1) DU per 10 acres. If that is the case, the
applicant should revise the PUD for a lower number of overall dwelling units. A lower number of dwelling
units would alter the overall water demand calculations.
Review of land use, water use, and proposed demand calculations in the PUD Guide
The PUD Guide provides a broad brush look at the Planning Areas, PUD Zone Districts, and Land Uses.
Table 6.2 Land Use Schedule includes an overview of how each Land Use Category fits within each
Zone District.
• In Table 6.2, agricultural uses and nursery/greenhouse and gardens, non-commercial are
allowed in all Zone Districts except for Open Space Limited. The documentation doesn’t appear
to account for or calculate agricultural uses and greenhouse uses. Given the large lot size of the
single lot in the Pasture District (200 acres) and large lots in Mountain District (5+ acres) along
with intended uses of agricultural use, how will outdoor water irrigation be managed for the large
acreages? Will these outdoor water uses be covered by surface water rights? If so, how will the
surface water rights be managed and distributed on a property-wide and individual property
owner level basis? Will groundwater be used for these outdoor uses? Water use for
agricultural purposes and greenhouses needs to be quantified.
• Under Retail/Wholesale, one of the use types is Brewery, Winery, Cidery, Distillery. This Use
Type is a high water use type and it should be assumed that water produced from groundwater
and used by breweries, wineries, cideries, and distilleries will be exported outside of the aquifer
area. Exporting this water means it will not return to the aquifer and could be exported outside
of the state. Other commercial water uses can fit into the assumption that a certain percentage
of the water used will be returned as wastewater, but this Use Type does not fit into that
assumption. The Use Type of Brewery, Winery, Cidery, Distillery should not be allowed in
this PUD as this would allow for water produced from groundwater to be exported outside
of the aquifer area.
• Snowmaking is listed as a Use Type. Snowmaking is a water intensive activity that is not
quantified in any of the PUD demand calculations. Snowmaking would be operated exclusively
during winter months when surface irrigation rights would not be running. Therefore,
snowmaking would either rely on pumped groundwater or surface rights stored in a reservoir.
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
18
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
The applicant has not demonstrated whether they will have enough raw water stored in the
reservoir at the beginning of the winter season to support snowmaking water demands.
Additionally, snowmaking is not covered under the proposed water rights applications or any
decreed water right appropriation. If the applicant purchases augmentation water, such water
would enter the stream system downstream but would not replenish the aquifer. As a rule of
thumb, snowmaking water demands are approximately 200,000 gallons (0.61 acre-feet) per acre
of ski run area, for a 15-inch layer of snow, which is a typical industry standard snow depth
needed to open a green ski run. Blue or black rated ski runs would require a 24-inch depth of
snow or more, depending on the terrain. The 200,000 gallon per acre value is based on a snow-
water ratio of 2.5, and 20% loss during snowmaking. Additional applications would be needed
periodically to replace snow lost to snowmelt, especially on south-facing slopes (and it appears
much of the possible locations for a ski area would be south-facing slopes). The applicant should
provide information about the acreage of ski run proposed for snowmaking so the County and
reviewers can understand the magnitude of the potential water demand associated. What is
proposed acreage of trails for snowmaking? If this information cannot be provided, snowmaking
operations should be removed from the PUD application. Snowmaking is potentially a very large
additional water demand.
Furthermore, snowmaking has not been listed as a use for the water rights requested in Case
No. 22CW3009. The Legal Water Supply Letter even states that SVR does not currently have a
legal supply for snowmaking, “the existing decreed legal and physical water supply is adequate
to meet the water requirements for the amended PUD plan, except for snowmaking.” For all the
above reasons, SGM recommends removing snowmaking as a Use Type for this PUD
Application. SGM recommends the applicant would need to return for a PUD amendment
to allow for snowmaking once they can show demand and depletion calculations and can
demonstrate legal and physical water supply for snowmaking.
• Car Wash is listed as a Use Type. Car washes have very high water use, as compared to other
commercial land uses. SGM analyzed water use for a local car wash and found the average
monthly use is 223,000 gal/month and up to 465,000 gal/month in peak summer months. This
water use equates to approximately 8 to 11 acre-feet annually, for one car wash alone. If 1 EQR
equals 350 gallons per day per EQR according to the Spring Valley Sanitation District’s EQR
schedule, then one car wash could equal 28 EQR, which is one third of the EQRs for commercial
development. The car wash use type either needs to be removed from Table 6.2 Land Use
Schedule or it needs to be specifically quantified and EQRs set aside for a car wash within
the PUD.
Water Demand Calculations in the Water Supply and Distribution Plan
Commercial Demands
The number of EQRs listed for commercial development is 80, with 35 in the upper portion and 45 in
the lower portion of the PUD. Is this number of EQRs enough to support all mixed use, community
buildings, restaurants, fitness centers, overnight accommodations, etc. proposed in the PUD? The
applicant should demonstrate that 80 EQRs is enough to support all commercial uses listed and needs
to list the breakdown of EQRs for commercial development by Planning Area and by Upper/Lower
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
19
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
systems. Water demands for the Golf Course Family Barn, clubhouse/lodge, restaurants, dining
facilities, fitness center/spa, overnight accommodations, mixed-use area, and other similar Land Uses
proposed in the PUD Guide have much higher water use than other commercial land use types such
as retail.
In addition, the consumptive use or depletions of the commercial EQRs needs to be taken into account.
Depending on the eventual mix of different types of commercial use, the same demand could have a
drastically different amount of depletions.
Many of the commercial uses anticipated could have high water demands and high consumptive use.
SVR has not calculated the demands and consumptive use for all planned use types. In addition to
the limit on commercial EQRs, the SVR PUD should be held to a budget of depletions for the
commercial EQRs to be developed within the PUD, to ensure that no use types cause SVR to
exceed its planned depletions for commercial uses. Applicant should also propose ways to
communicate the depletion budget for commercial EQRs, how they will comply with that budget,
and how they will use water saving technologies to meet that budget.
Potable Irrigation Demands
Table 1 Potable Water Demand Summary lists Maximum Irrigation (sq.ft) by Dwelling Unit Type, and
also lists a number of Dwelling Units. Multiplying these produces a total max residential irrigation area
of 1,451,500 square feet or 33.32 acres. A total irrigated area is not given for commercial sites, but a
total water demand for commercial site is listed as 33,925 gpd. SGM is unsure how this number was
calculated and would like clarification. The Aquifer Sustainability Study lists 90 acres of bluegrass to be
irrigated with potable water. It is not clear what the total acreage of potable water irrigated bluegrass is
from the information given in the Water Supply and Distribution Plan. The applicant needs to provide
expanded and clear calculations for all potable water demands.
Table 1 does not include the number of dwelling units and corresponding irrigated areas associated
with the Zone District Pasture District. What is the maximum irrigation (sq.ft), Daily Demand per Unit
Type (gpd), and number of Dwelling Units for Pasture District residences? Since Pasture District
residence will have 200+ acre lots, the applicant needs to provide additional information on total water
demand for these properties.
For the maximum irrigation (sq.ft) listed in Table 1, how will this irrigated area assumption be enforced?
Will there be covenants or other restrictions to enforce a maximum irrigation area per residence? EQRs
don’t include agriculture or greenhouse water use. The applicant needs to account for those separately
and show how they fit into the water use assumptions in Table 1. Irrigation is a high consumptive use
demand, and if irrigation expands beyond what is contemplated this could have serious consequences.
The SVR PUD should be held to strict limits on allowable irrigated area, both total and for
individual residential lots.
In addition, the PUD Guide describes a use for greenhouses, but the Water Supply and Distribution
Plan does not provide specifically calculated demands. Greenhouses can extend the irrigation season
beyond the physical and legal availability of surface water rights. As such, these demands would need
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
20
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
to be met by groundwater diversions. SVR should calculate demands for greenhouses and explain how
they will be met.
Raw Water Demands for Golf Courses
Section 1.7.1 Raw Water Demands includes information regarding raw water for irrigation of the golf
course and snowmaking operations. Please refer to comments above regarding snowmaking. The
applicant doesn’t include calculations for the golf course water demand. These calculations should be
provided. The assumption that water will only be used during the months of April to October is
inadequate, as it does not cover scenarios of dry and/or windy shoulder season or winter months when
the turf will still need to be watered. The report states the golf course irrigation demand data is based
on local golf course data from the last 5-6 years. This information should be provided. The report lists
a maximum daily irrigation demand of 1,000,000 gallons per day. The applicant needs to provide
calculations and documentation showing the demand of 329 acre-feet per year includes such high
demands, and needs to show that they have adequate legal and physical supply to support this high
level of water demand.
The Aquifer Sustainability Report states that Landis Creek surface water rights “have historically been
used to irrigate the property,” and that “a portion [of the non-potable diversion] will be satisfied by senior
surface water rights.” It appears the intent is to supply the bulk of non-potable demands from surface
supplies, and it is clear that golf courses are a major component of the non-potable demands. However,
Applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify their non-potable golf course demands.
Applicant needs to justify these demands further, and should clarify to what extent these demands can
be satisfied by surface water supplies versus what will need to come from groundwater supplies.
Golf courses have high unit demands, and the proposed irrigated acreage for golf courses is high.
Together, the golf course demands are large compared with demands of other developments in Spring
Valley. Applicant estimates demands of 329 acre-feet per year just for golf courses (per the Water
Supply and Distribution Plan). Applicant’s proposed demands for golf courses alone are greater than
the buildout demands of Elk Springs, Elk Mesa, Pinion Mesa, Colorado Mountain College, and Lookout
Mountain Ranch developments combined (see Table 2).
Applicant must better justify these high demands. SGM recommends the applicant reduce the
proposed irrigated acreage for golf courses to what applicant can demonstrate can be supplied
by surface water supplies. SGM also recommends Applicant commit to only irrigating its golf
courses with surface water supplies (not groundwater). SGM further recommends these two
limitations be conditions of approval of this PUD. This would prevent the high golf course demands
from requiring groundwater pumping when surface water supplies are unavailable.
Water Demand Calculations in the Aquifer Sustainability Report
Table 3: Potable Demands does not include enough information to evaluate breakdown of demand
calculations. This table needs to be expanded to include a split between residential and commercial
uses, similar to how the demands are listed in the Water Supply and Distribution Plan document. The
demand calculations need to be split between upper and lower areas of the PUD, as well as split into
Elk Springs HOA September 2024
21
118 W. 6th St, Ste 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1004 Fax: 970-945-5948
Planning Areas. Columns need to be added to show the conversion between gallons per day and acre-
feet.
In the Water Supply and Distribution Plan document, the EQR is listed as 577 residential and 80
commercial, for a total of 657 EQR. Table 3 lists 695 EQR, which doesn’t match. Applicant should clarify
the total EQR for the entire PUD, as well as the breakdown number of EQR for each Planning Area.
The Domestic Irrigation acreage is listed as 90 acres, which doesn’t match the irrigated acres listed in
the Water Supply and Distribution Plan.
Water Demand from Surface Water Rights and from Groundwater
SVR has not adequately explained what portion of its total demands and depletions will be met by senior
surface water rights and what portion will be met by groundwater. This should be clarified.
6) Conclusion
SGM’s analysis of the SVR development's water supply availability reveals significant concerns
regarding aquifer sustainability, recharge rates, groundwater storage volume, and demand calculations.
The Aquifer Sustainability Report's assumptions about aquifer storage, recharge, and water balance
lack sufficient justification and fail to account for critical factors such as prolonged dry periods and inter-
aquifer dynamics. There is a serious risk of aquifer mining due to overestimated recharge rates and
proposed high water use. To ensure sustainable water management, SVR should provide more
comprehensive analyses, validate its assumptions, and limit its high-water-use activities. Strict
monitoring and mitigation measures must be put in place to protect the aquifer and ensure a reliable
water supply for the proposed development and for all users of the Spring Valley Aquifer.
Attachments
Attachment A: Spring Valley Overview Map
Attachment B: Colorado Geological Survey Reports for Quad Maps in Attachment A (Spring Valley
Overview Map)
The purpose of this report is to examine geologic and hydrologic data related to the
geographic area known as Spring Valley and, there from, prepare estimates of the
potential specific yield of the water bearing horizons (aquifers) and estimates of amount
of annual recharge to those water bearing horizons.
A segment of the natural phenomenon that will be discussed in this dissertation is often
referred to as the “Spring Valley Aquifer”. This is the approximate 1,500-acre area
basin, flanked on the east by County Road 114 and on the north by County Road 115. It
has been penetrated by a number of wells that serve Colorado Mountain College, the sod
farm and most of the single-family homes along 114 road and 115 road. The small
stream that drains the surface of the basin, discharges in Red Canyon.
This basin, as noted above, represents only a segment of a dynamic hydrologic system
comprised of highly favorable geologic conditions situated in a meteorological
environment conducive to precipitation levels substantially greater than the adjacent
lower valley areas.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The recharge area of the Spring Valley Hydrologic System is comprised of approximately
15.4 square miles. This area, illustrated on the attached map, varies in elevation from
6,870 to 9,400 feet. The surficial geology of this recharge area may be divided, for
purposes of hydrologic consideration, into three petrographic types:
• Siltstones, sandstones, clay stones and conglomerates of the Pennsylvanian/
Permian Maroon Formation;
• Basalt flows, basalt talus, colluvium comprised predominantly of basaltic
material, all of Tertiary and early Quaternary age; and
• Quaternary lacustrine materials comprised predominantly of fine-grained products
of the chemical and mechanical weathering of the older rock materials that were
deposited in a lake. Samples from recent well drilling have been examined which
indicate deposits of volcanic ash in the lower portions of the lake basin.
Stratigraphically, the Maroon Formation under lays the basalt and alluvial materials. It
overlays the Eagle Valley Evaporate Formation, sometimes referred to as the Paradox
Formation. The Maroon formation, along with underlying sediments, was elevated and
exposed by erosion in the course of the orogeny that created the White River uplift to the
north.
The Eagle Valley Evaporite formation contains beds of soluble salts such as Gypsum and
Halite. The introduction of ground water into these salt beds resulted in the slow, but
steady solution and removal of several thousand feet of this formation over a large
section of a portion of the Roaring Fork River drainage area. The area of the Spring
Valley Hydrologic System straddles the northern edge of this affected area. As the salts
were removed, the overlaying rocks settled. This activity was, likely, very similar to the
current mining of soluble minerals by hydrothermal water as demonstrated by the
Glenwood Hot Springs and the other hot springs along the Colorado River. The solution
and removal of salts was not uniform over the effected area and the collapse of the
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 2 of 11
overlaying rocks resulted in deformation, shear fracturing and faulting of the Maroon
formation as well as the overlaying rock of volcanic origin. The intensity of this
fracturing may be better understood by observing the Maroon Formation outcrops
exposed along Highway 82 from Carbondale to Red Canyon. The sandstone beds which
are interbedded with siltstones and shales are well-cemented, relatively hard rock. When
they were originally deposited and lithified, they formed straight, flat, continuous
unbroken layers of stone. Now they have the character of blocks of stone laid up in a dry
stack wall constructed on an uneven surface. While a minor amount of this fracturing
may be attributed to the White River Uplift activity, the vast majority is the result of
irregular collapse due to the solution mining of the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporites.
The volcanic materials were similarly fractured by this removal of the evaporite basement
rock. The fracturing of relatively continuous lava flows may be observed in the cliffs
along the lower reaches of Landis Creek and on the slopes northerly of county road 115.
The high infiltration rate and water bearing capacity of the volcanic rock material is the
product of the above noted, intense fracturing of the very brittle basalt coupled with the
high porosity of the subsurface beds and lenses of volcanic ash, cinders and breccias.
The strongest fault/fracture systems are indicated by geomorphologic evidence and are
illustrated on the map. It appears that most of the fracturing of the volcanic materials is
the result of bending and slumping of the rock layers which caused very little
displacement from one side of the fault/fracture zone to the other. Some of the volcanic
material outcrops and sub-outcrops are virtually rubblized while other outcrop sections
appear to be rafted basalt blocks with horizontal dimensions of several hundred feet.
Much of the land surface which slopes at 20% or greater has a very thin to virtually non-
existent soil cover. Vegetation, in these areas, is sparse and small indicating that it
survives with a minimal moisture supply, even though the area receives 25 to 30 inches
of precipitation per year. Excavation in the course of constructing pioneer roads reveals
areas of the subsoil rock, to be comprised primarily of medium sized to massive boulders
wherein the “porosity” may be visualized as that which would result from the stacking of
poorly sorted particles that range in size from basketballs to Volkswagens. The
percolation rate in these areas is obviously, very rapid.
In some areas of the surface, where the land slope is less than 15 percent, soil has
accumulated to depths of as much as 20 feet over the rock. Percolation tests were
conducted on soils of this type at 11 locations in the upland aquifer recharge area. The
average of the percolation rates measured was 25.5 minutes per inch (2.35 inches per
hour) with the range being from 3 to 64 minutes per inch. Of the 11 tests, 8 measured at
34 minutes per inch or less.
The volcanic activity events of 3 to 4 +/- million years ago deposited 100 to 200 feet or
more of interlayered basalt, cinders, ash, and breccias on a substantially more horizontal
surface than is present in the area today. The intervening 3 million +/- years of erosion
on that surface, which was slowly tilting southerly, has removed the softer,
unconsolidated cinders and ash from the surface, exposing, hard, weather resistant basalt.
The remaining, highly porous ash and cinder lenses below the hard basalt surface provide
pockets or constricted basins of high porosity where ground water is detained. Surface
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 3 of 11
water is channeled into these detention basins or “hanging aquifers” via the fractured and
rubblized surface basalt. Subsurface fractures interconnect the detention basins and act
as restricted conduits that facilitate the slow, but continuous, transmission of water from
those at higher elevations to the ones below.
The segment of the system, which is referred to, as the Spring Valley Aquifer is in fact a
composite of a series of confined aquifers in the sediments overlaying the bedrock, and
the upper portion of the bedrock, underlying these sediments, which is itself, a confined
aquifer capable of, and demonstrated to produce artesian wells.
The confined aquifers within the lakebed sediments are comprised of sand and sandy
gravel horizons confined between layers of clay or sandy, gravely clay. From previous
drilling and data from Spring Valley Ranch well #6 drilled in February and March 2000,
it appears that the lower 70 to 110 feet of the sediment section in the northwestern end of
the basin is very fine-grained sand. Samples taken from this well drilling were tested and
it was determined that the specific porosity of this material is approximately 30%.
Microscopic examination of this material reveals that it is highly angular, with the
appearance of shattered glass. The particles do not exhibit the characteristics of sand
grains that have been subjected to significant transportation and attrition by either water
or wind action. It is suspected that this sand is vitric volcanic ash, which was deposited
in and adjacent, upslope of the lake basin during the creation of the basin by subsidence,
as discussed below.
The bedrock form of the lake basin is a “half graben” with the fault on the southerly side
along County Road 119. The bedrock is comprised of Maroon Formation sediments,
capped with 100 feet or more of volcanic material similar to that which may be observed
on the north side of 115 road and in the cap rock on the south side of the valley. This
bedrock block tilts, or more accurately “slumps” southerly From the divide between the
Colorado and Roaring Fork river drainages, down the south facing slopes of Spring
Valley and under the basin, to its termination at a fault that extends along the southern
side of the valley.
An additional feature has been observed in the aquifer basin. In many of the deep drill
holes, the volcanic rock section below is separated from the overlaying lake sediments by
a layer of blue gray clay as much as 40 feet thick. This is probably montmorillonite clay
of the bentonite variety that is formed by the alteration of volcanic ash and tuff. Where
present, this clay layer acts as a seal between the lake sediments and the underlying
volcanic rock material.
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
The conditions and events noted above created the geologic setting for the Spring Valley
Hydrologic System. The other component of the system is the precipitation provided by
the meteorological environment.
Average annual precipitation in the Colorado Mountains increases substantially with
elevation. This is illustrated on the Colorado Average Precipitation Map, 1951 to1980,
prepared by Colorado State University in conjunction with Climatology Report 84-5,
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 4 of 11
published by the U.S. Geological Survey. This map indicates that the uppermost part of
the recharge area of this hydrologic system receives an average of 30 inches of
precipitation per year while the lowest portion of the recharge area receives 16 inches to
20 inches per year.
PRECIPITATION INFILTRATION
The effective introduction of this precipitation into the underground hydrologic system is
largely dependent upon the character of the surface geology. Fractured basalt flows,
basalt talus and colluvium comprised predominantly of granular soil and rock are highly
permeable, wherein it is estimated that, at least 60% of the precipitation will enter the
aquifer after evaporation, transpiration and surface run-off. This high rate of infiltration
is graphically demonstrated by the drainage along County Road 115 within the Spring
Valley Ranch. The Basalt hillside northerly of the road ranges in slope from 10 to 40
percent. The average annual precipitation received by this area is 20 to 25 inches per
year. Drainage sub-basins above, discharge to these slopes, yet many of the natural
drainage swales crossed by the road do not have culverts and do not have the appearance
of areas that transport or pond water. It is reported, by longtime residents of the area, that
only on occasions of extremely high snow melt or cloud burst, does flooding of the road
occur.
This condition has also been observed on the pioneer roads constructed on the higher
portions of the Spring Valley Ranch that are underlain by fractured basalt or thin granular
soils over basalt. The inability of the thin soils to retain moisture is demonstrated by the
light vegetation cover.
The topographic characteristics of the highly basaltic surfaces are further evidence of its
high infiltration rate. This is an area that sustains an average precipitation of 20 to 30
inches per year on slopes of 10 to 50 percent. If the rate of infiltration of precipitation
was not exceptionally high, the large volume of high velocity run-off would have eroded
major drainage swales and gulches down the slopes, nearly perpendicular to the contours.
The precipitation does occur, but the run-off does not. Instead, this precipitation enters
the fractured and otherwise highly porous basaltic materials and is detained there in a
series of cascading aquifers that are interconnected by shear fracture zones. These
fracture zones function as control orifices and slowly release the gravity flow of water to
springs and the aquifers below.
Conversely, fractured Maroon formation overlain with silty, loam soils supporting
moderate to heavy vegetation will result in the infiltration of approximately 20% of the
precipitation with the balance being lost to evapotranspiration and surface runoff. Where
this surface runoff must cross the basaltic areas noted above, much of it will enter the
groundwater system.
The conditions described above were applied to the map of the recharge area, prepared on
the basis of published geologic mapping and personal observations. The following table
was prepared which estimates the average precipitation amount in the recharge area and
the potential infiltration amount entering the underground hydrologic system.
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 5 of 11
PERCIPITATION ZONE
AND ESTIMATED
INFILTRATION RATE
AREA
(ACRES)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION (A/F)
ESTIMATED
INFILTRATION TO
AQUIFER (A/F)
16’ – 20” (18”) 20% 592 888.0 177.6
16” – 20” (18”) 60% 1,497 2,245.5 1,347.3
20” – 25” (22.5”) 20% 1,050 1,968.8 393.8
20” – 25” (22.5”) 60% 2,180 4,087.5 2,452.5
25” – 30” (27.5”) 20% 450 1,331.3 206.3
25” – 30” (27.5”) 60% 3,794.6 8,694.6 5,216.8
30” 75% 277 692.5 519.4
TOTAL 9,840.6 19,908.2 10,313.7
WET/DRY YEAR 11,345.07/8,250.96
As may be observed, the above calculations indicate that more than 50% of the system
recharge occurs in the higher elevations. The possible amount of recharge to the aquifer
may also be estimated by the following formula:
recharge = precipitation – evapotranspiration – surface flow down red canyon.
Observations made by Wright Water Engineers, indicate that the surface flow down Red
Canyon will vary from 400 to 600 acre feet per year. As noted above, the estimated
average precipitation for the total system recharge area is computed to be 19, 908.2 acre
feet per year.
The following table illustrates an estimate of the probable losses to evapotranspiration in
the various precipitation zones and vegetation types. The evapotranspiration rate factors
used in the calculations were taken from Handbook of Applied Hydrology by Chow,
McGraw-Hill.
PRECIPITATION
ZONE
WATERSHED AREA
(ACRES)
VEGETATION TYPE
& EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
FACTOR (INCHES/YEAR)
POTENTIAL LOSS TO
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
16” –20” 2,089 GRASS, BRUSH & SHRUBS
5-10 (USE 7.5)
1,305.6
20” –25” 3,230 GRASS, BRUSH & SHRUBS
5-10 (USE 7.5)
2,018.8
25” – 30” 2,122,3
2,122.3
50%GRASS, BRUSH & SHRUBS
7.5
50% ASPEN/FIR
23
1,326.4
4,067.7
30’ 277 ASPEN/FIR
23
530.9
TOTAL 9,840.6 9,249.4
Appling the equation noted above:
recharge = precipitation – evapotranspiration – surface flow down red canyon.
Probable Recharge = 19,908.2 - 9,249.4 – 600 = 10,058.8 acre feet per year
The section underlain by basaltic materials located easterly of Landis Creek accounts for
the majority of the recharge and is believed to support the greatest detention volume in
the system, which, in turn recharges the Spring Valley Aquifer.
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 6 of 11
This belief is supported by the presence of consistently flowing springs which surface in
the upland area and the characteristics of the seven wells which have been drilled there
and pump tested . One well was drilled in the Maroon formation and six in the volcanics.
All of the wells were test pumped for 24 hours immediately following drilling and 3 were
selected for extended pump tests. The extended pump tests are described in the Wright
Water Engineers, Inc., report “Spring Valley Upland Aquifer Pumping Tests – 2000”.
Peter Cabrinha has been closely associated with the Spring Valley Ranch for 37 years and
has observed the performance of springs on the property. In a recent interview with Mr.
Cabrinha, the following observations were related:
• All of the springs appear to flow year around at relatively consistent rates with the
exception of periods following extremely low winter and spring precipitation.
• In his 37 years of observation, there were two occasions when the upper Landis
Creek springs, at 9,100 ft elevation, stopped flowing. These stoppages occurred
in the late summer or early fall of the year following the low winter and spring
precipitation. The springs resumed flow the following spring.
• The flows of the lower elevation springs do not appear to diminish following dry
winter/spring seasons.
ESTIMATE OF SPECIFIC YIELD OF SYSTEM AQUIFIRS
In order to accommodate to the performance described above, the hydrologic system
must receive a substantial portion of the precipitation, as indicated in the table above, and
have a sufficient volume of specific yield to detain the infiltrated precipitation of several
years.
Information is available to compute a conservative estimate of the potential specific yield
of the aquifers in the system. The following assumptions and parameters will be used in
computing the estimated specific yield.
1. The upland area in the 20-inch to 30+-inch precipitation zone covered by volcanic
materials contains approximately 5,975 acres.
2. The thickness of the volcanic materials intercepted by the six wells, drilled in
volcanics, in the upland area ranged from 112 feet to 200 feet with an average of
168 feet. The depth of water in the wells (static level to bottom) ranged from 46
feet to 310 feet with an average of 135 feet. For conservative estimating
purposes, a saturated thickness of only 50 feet will be used.
3. The porous volcanic materials will perform similarly to sand, gravel and cobbles
for which the specific yield will range from 34% to 20% (from Figure 5-4 Bear
Jacob. 1979 Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill). For conservative
estimating purposes, a range of 10 to 20% will be used.
4. The surface area of the Spring Valley aquifer is approximately 1,500 acres.
5. Well log information indicates that the thickness of lake sediments may average
from 250 to 300 feet. in thickness, comprised of 10 to 20 feet of gravel bed, 140
to 180 feet of sandy, clayey silt with some gravel and 70 to 110 feet of very fine
sand (vitric volcanic ash). For conservative estimating purposes, the following
will be used for the lake sediments:
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 7 of 11
Sandy, clayey silt = 140 feet; gravel = 10 feet; very fine sand = 70 feet.
6. The specific yield of gravel beds in the lake sediments will range from 25% to
34%; the silty clay may range from 3% to 25%; the sand from 25% to 35% (from
Figure 5-4 Bear Jacob. 1979 Hydraulics of Groundwater.) McGraw-Hill). For
conservative estimating purposes, 25% will be used for the gravel beds and 3%
will be used for the clayey sediments and 20% for the very fine sand.
Bear Jacob. 1979. Hydraulics of groundwater. McGraw-Hill.
The following calculations of the specific yield of the aquifers in the hydrologic system
are based on the assumptions and parameters stated above.
Upland volcanic areas
5,975 acres x 50 feet thick x 0.10 or 0.20 specific yield = 29, 875 to 59,750 acre feet
Spring valley aquifer gravel beds
1,500 acres x 10 feet thick x 0.25 specific yield = 3,750 acre feet
Spring valley aquifer silty clay sediments
1,500 acres x 140 feet thick x 0.03 specific yield = 6,300 acre feet
Spring valley aquifer very fine sand bed
1,500 acres x 70 feet thick x 0.20 specific yield = 21,000 acre feet
Volcanics at base of Spring Valley aquifer
1,500 acres x 50 feet thick x 0.10 or 0.20 specific yield = 7,500 to 15,000 acre feet
ESTIMATED TOTAL SPECIFIC YIELD OF AQUIFERS IN
SPRING VALLEY HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM = 68,425 to 105,800 AF
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 8 of 11
Note: the above calculations do not include the volcanic areas in the 16” to 20”
precipitation zone nor any of the Maroon formation area.
ADDITIONAL AQUIFER CHARACTERISTICS
Examination of the records of the State Engineer indicates that the majority of the
domestic (single family home) wells in the Spring Valley are drawing water from the
upper to middle, silty, clayey lakebed sediments. Although the specific yield of these
materials is estimated to be only 3%, it is believed to be a viable segment of the aquifer
because it can provide adequate supplies of water to small domestic wells in the valley
bottom and probably not be effected by the pumping of large volume wells which draw
from the higher yield sands and volcanics in the lower section of the aquifer.
The large volume wells of CMC, Los Amigos and the sod farm are drawing water from
the volcanic material horizon at the base of the Spring Valley aquifer. Intermediate test
pumping of Spring Valley Ranch well #6 from the fine sand zone above the clay
indicates that sustained production of at least 250 gpm is available from this material.
The static head elevations of the CMC and Los Amigos wells, on the southeast end of the
valley, is approximately 100 feet lower than the Spring Valley Ranch wells on the
northwest end indicating a general flow of northwest to southeast. This would support
the theory that the aquifer outflow generally follows the half graben fault fracture system
to the roaring fork valley.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The source of recharge for the Spring Valley Aquifer is predominantly from the
volcanic material in the upland aquifers.
2. This writer believes the average annual precipitation entering the system as
recharge and flowing through the series of aquifers, to be approximately 10,000
acre-feet. Peer review of this information by others who have not had the benefit
of on-site observations, assign substantially higher volume to loss by
evapotranspiration and therefore estimate the average annual recharge volume
more conservatively at 4,700 acre-feet. Considering that the potential total annual
depletion of the aquifer by existing and future land development is in the vicinity
of 1,300 to 1,500 acre feet, the lower figure still assures viability of the aquifer.
3. The estimated specific yield volume of the aquifers in the hydrologic system is in
the range of 68,000 to 105,000 acre feet, of which approximately 38,000 to
46,000 acre feet are contained in the Spring Valley aquifer and approximately
30,000 to 60,000 acre feet are available in the upland volcanic material aquifers to
recharge the Spring Valley aquifer. These large volumes of stored water provide
a leveling effect to the variations in annual precipitation over a period of 6 to 10
years, or more.
4. A substantial portion of the water that enters the system does not again surface in
the system, but, leaks out through fracture systems associated with the half graben
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 9 of 11
fault on the south side of the Spring Valley aquifer and probably enters the
Roaring Fork River valley gravel aquifer.
5. The most promising target zones for a large production well appears to be the
volcanic ash layer in the lower sediments and the volcanic material horizon below
the sediments in the Spring Valley Aquifer.
6. It is highly probable that water production from the lower volcanic ash layer in
the sediments and the volcanic material horizon below the sediments in the Spring
Valley Aquifer will reduce the leakage to the Roaring Fork River area, but will
have little or no effect on the small domestic wells in the upper sediments or the
surface discharge down Red Canyon.
Respectfully,
Jerome F. Gamba, P.E. & L.S. 5933
Enclosures: Exhibit 1, Map of Spring Valley Hydrologic System
Exhibit 2, Generalized Geologic Section of Spring Valley and Upland
Aquifers
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 10 of 11
REFERENCES
Bass, N.W., and Northrup, S. A., 1963, Geology of Glenwood Spring
Quadrangle and Vicinity, Northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 1142-J 74p.
Colorado Average Precipitation Map, 1951 to 1980, prepared by Colorado
State University in conjunction with Climatology Report 84-5, published
by the U. S. Geological Survey.
Colorado Geological Survey, 1974, Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys-An
Environmental and Engineering Geology Study, Environmental Geology
No. 8.
Kirkham, Robert, M. and others, 1995, Geologic Map of the Glenwood
Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geologic
Survey, Open File Report 95-3.
Kirkham, Robert, M. and others, 1995, Geologic Map of the Shoshone
Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geologic Survey, Open
File Report 95-4.
Kirkham, Robert, M. and others, 1996, Geologic Map of the Cattle Creek
Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geologic Survey, Open
File Report 96-1.
Kirkham, Robert, M. and Beth L. Widmann, 1997, Geologic Map of the
Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geologic
Survey, Open File Report 97-3
Geologic Map of the Spring Valley Ranch, 1999, CTL/Thompson, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers.
Report: Water Requirements, Water Resources, and Spring Valley Area
Water Balance, 2000, Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
The Spring Valley Hydrologic System
March 10, 2000
Page 11 of 11
Spring Valley Aquifer
Confined aquifers of sandy gravel confined
between layers of sandy, gravely clay
River gravel aquifer
Fork River
Vitric volcanic ash
Half graben fault
Blue gray clay
Pennsylvanian Eagle Valley Evaporite Formation--Shales,
gypsum, anhydrite, halite and thin carbonate beds
NOTTO SCALE
VERTICAL SCALE GR EATLY EXAGG ERATED
Primary recharge area
Fault/Fracture zone
Tertiary and possibly early Quaternary-
interlayered basalt, cinders, ash and breccias
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC SECTION
OF SPRING VALLEY AND UPLAND
AQUIFER --EXHIBIT C-L
SPRING VALLEY RANCH P.U.D.
PLANNER:
DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC.
120 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970)925-8354
CIVIL ENGINEERING:
..EROME GAMBA &: ASSOCIAlES, INC.
C0IIUJr«l B«IIIBll lc LNI) 8llfe0RB POST OFFICE BOX 1458
113 NINTH SlREET -SUITE 214
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-2550
DATE: MARCH 15, 2000
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Cc:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:35:59 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Here is another SVR comment.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 8:58 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Development
Name: Ryan Hygon
Email: rhygon@gmail.com
Phone Number: (828) 713-9762
Message: Please consider the negative impacts this development would have on our
valley. In rural areas with few job opportunities, this might be a harder decision due to
the potential economic benefits. However, in our valley, we already have more jobs
available than people, particularly for the type of employment this development would
offer.
We face significant issues with water shortages, traffic congestion, wildlife habitat
destruction, and fire risks. This development would exacerbate these well-
documented problems, primarily benefiting out-of-state developers and affluent
homeowners.
I urge you to do everything in your power to reject this project and help preserve the
quality of life for those of us who call the Roaring Fork Valley home.
From:Robert Shettel
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch Development
Date:Thursday, September 12, 2024 11:41:53 AM
You don't often get email from bshettel@me.com. Learn why this is important
To Garfield County Planners and Commissioners,
I’m writing you to express my desire that the approval of this development strictly follows the
recommendations of our local Colorado Parks and Wildlife managers, with particular regard to
the local elk herd. In a way, I’m writing on behalf of that elk herd. Officially, this is the
Fryingpan River Elk Herd, for Data Analysis Unit 16. DAU 16 covers a huge area, extending
all the way to Independence Pass and Hagerman Pass on the East, and up to Minturn and Red
Cliff. The Spring Valley Ranch is located at the extreme western edge of the DAU 16, and is
where a large portion of that herd over winters.
I initially started hunting this herd back in the early Nineties and continued to hunt them up
through the Lake Christine fire in 2018, after which I more or less aged out. When I first
started hunting them, it was a robust herd, numbering over 10,000 head, providing me and the
other groups of hunters with abundant opportunities to fill our freezers. We first ran into a
noticeable decline in numbers in the early to mid 2000’s, brought on by several factors. We
hunters felt it was primarily due to the explosion of mountain bikes, which were starting to run
rampant through critical calving habitat both in our valley and the Eagle River Valley. CPW
may be able to add additional factors. CPW’s own calf:cow ratios corroborated this with the
ratio dropping to 32:100 in 2003. Generally speaking, a ratio of 50:100 is required just to
maintain herd size. That ratio continues to be under 40:100 to this day.
Around 2015 that 10,000 number elk herd was down to 5,000. CPW instituted some draconian
measures to rescue the herd. I believe we had 4 solid years with NO cow tags and limited draw
tags. The measures worked, bringing the herd back up to the population objective. That said,
the calf:cow ratio is still below 40:100. Anything we can do to eliminate the stressors on the
cows during calving season will help this herd. The recommendations that our CPW Wildlife
managers have made cover this. I can only emphasize that you in the planning department
follow to the letter their recommendations.
Sincerely,
Bob Shettel
local hunter
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Friday, September 13, 2024 11:12:49 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Here is another one for SVR.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:48 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: AGAINST SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
Name: Jennifer Duffy
Email: jpatti7@me.com
Phone Number: (651) 260-0180
Message: September 13, 2024
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
My name is Jennifer Duffy and I am a resident and live in Elk Springs. I am writing to
the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my concerns for the
proposed sale and development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in
Glenwood Springs.
There are many reasons why this sale/development should not be allowed to be
approved. Some of the main key points of concern are summarized below:
WATER- Water levels have been inconsistent since Colorado has been in a drought
for over 15 years. Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf
course, a general store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the
developers are proposing, would significantly affect the water sources.
FIRE- There would be an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be
another fire in the area, for residents to get out safely as well as first responders to
safely access the areas. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads (due to
construction or daily commuting or random traffic), this could cause a problem with
roads becoming blocked.
TRAFFIC- The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area
would affect many of the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents
and businesses around the area. The road usage increase would create more dust,
pollution and noise, that this rural area is not meant to have or endure.
WILDLIFE- This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it
extremely difficult for the wildlife’s migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic.
They would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate
their needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring
Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This
development would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away
from local businesses and the small-town mountain charm we have. It would also not
be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural. We need to help protect our waters.
We need to help protect the lands that the wildlife needs to survive. This proposed
development will kill what makes this place a desirable place to be. I ask that you do
the right thing and vote NO to the Spring Valley development.
Thank you for your time,
Jennifer Duffy, 284 Wood Nymph Lane
From:Jerome Dayton
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch Development
Date:Friday, September 13, 2024 3:55:48 PM
You don't often get email from jeromedayton@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
Dear Mr Hartman and Mr Berry-
Not only does the Spring Valley Ranch adversely affect water supply, wildlife, and
wildfire risks, it also has a perverse effect on the cost of living in this valley. I say
perverse because the very addition of non-affordable housing to the county,
particularly luxury housing, drives up the cost of living for the rest of us through:
Increasing costs for construction and repairs as the housing development
competes for the trades with all the existing residents.
These new luxury residents will want their services, adding more demand for
the limited supply of labor, driving up labor costs and therefore the cost of living
for the rest of us.
The addition of more luxury houses has the perverse effect of raising the
property values of all the surrounding areas, increasing their property taxes.
This increase in property taxes results in higher rents making service people
relocate to cheaper areas, driving up rents there, and increasing the labor costs
for service jobs across the valley.
Even people that already own their own homes feel the effects of this increase
in the cost of living.
We simply do NOT need any more luxury developments in the valley. It's time we
seriously start addressing the lack of affordable housing in the valley before we all get
priced out of the market.
Jerome Dayton-
315 Oar Run Rd
Carbondale, CO 81623
Petitions Signed bv L ocal Residents to Halt/Oppose
the
Proposed Sprine Vallev Ranch Su bstantial PUD
Amendment.
Total s tg natures Collected : 1.033
Physical Signatures: 7 L7
Online Signatures: 315
From:noreply@formstack.com
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Saturday, September 14, 2024 7:28:12 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Development PUD
Name: Lorna Marchand
Email: lornamarchand@gmail.com
Phone Number: (970) 406-2423
Message: September 14, 2024
Mr. Philip Berry
Garfield County Planning Commission
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Spring Valley Ranch Development PUD
Dear Commissioners:
My husband David Miller and I are residents of the Elk Springs neighborhood. When
we built our home in 2020, we selected our lot based on the natural beauty of the
area, the quiet, semi-rural character of Elk Springs, and the presence of abundant
wildlife. We are absolutely dismayed at the prospect of a luxury “lifestyle"
development with nearly 600 homes, two golf courses, and a private ski hill abutting
our neighborhood. Elk Springs is NOT Aspen, and that’s exactly why we chose to live
here.
We have many concerns about the Spring Valley Ranch development. This
development will destroy the unique natural character of our community and interfere
with critical wildlife habitat. In a valley that already has numerous, underutilized golf
courses, the idea of constructing two more golf courses in the desert is ludicrous. The
golf courses and surrounding homes will negatively impact the elk and mule deer
herds by removing their migration corridor. In addition, the development will cause the
existing water shortage in Spring Valley to worsen as drought conditions increase.
The existing aquifer cannot sustain the additional burden of 1,000,000 gallons of
water per day being used for 577 homes and two golf courses. The absurdity of
building a private ski hill in a high desert environment that already has a water
shortage cannot be overstated. We already have four mountains at Aspen Snowmass
as well as Sunlight ski area.
We are also deeply concerned about the adverse impact this development will have
on our overburdened road infrastructure. Traffic safety is already a very serious
problem in the Roaring Fork Valley, and that issue should be prioritized by the
Garfield County Commission over the construction of an unnecessary luxury
development. The intersections at County Roads 114 and 110 and Highway 82 are
extremely dangerous, and accidents occur regularly. Just yesterday, another major
accident occurred on Highway 82 at the intersection with County Road 110, shutting
down the highway for nearly four hours and resulting in serious injuries. The access
roads into Spring Valley cannot support the hundreds of additional vehicles that would
be added to our roads with this new development, and evacuating in the very likely
event of a fire will be a public safety disaster.
We urge you to vote “no” on the Spring Valley Development. Please include this letter
in the packet that will be provided to the Planning Commission. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lorna Marchand and David Miller
75 Monarch Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-406-2423
From:Katie Dyal
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch Development
Date:Saturday, September 14, 2024 8:30:56 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from katie.dyal@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Hello Glen and Philip,
I am a resident who resides in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield
County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the proposed development
proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
Water is one of my greatest concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors
is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent
winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been water shortage
experiences during the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this area
but also the livestock and wildlife. Adding to additional golf courses will only add to the
already over taxed water table in Colorado.
We need to preserve the nearly 6,000 acres of Spring Valley Ranch from being OVER
developed into a gated, luxury lifestyle subdivision of 577 multi million dollar homes, that
will destroy rural land, decimate wildlife, deplete our precious local water supply, create
more traffic problems for the Roaring Fork Valley.
Garfield County does not need more residential development that only support the wealthy
and that which is set up to support very few people per acre.
When new developments must come in, they need to serve better serve the housing issues
we currently have.
Thank you for you time and attention taking into consideration the concerns.
Katie
Katie Dyal
951-961-1939
katie.dyal@gmail.com
Pronouns: she/her/hers
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's
not the same man."
- Heraclitus
From:Rick Carlson (via Google Docs)
To:Philip Berry
Cc:Glenn Hartmann; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky; ecottagebarclay@gmail.com
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch
Date:Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:08:30 AM
You don't often get email from riccarlson@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Rick Carlson attached a document
Rick Carlson (riccarlson@gmail.com) has attached the following
document: Learn more
Spring Valley Ranch Letter
Use is subject to the Google Privacy Policy.
Snapshot of the item below:
September 14, 2024
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I am a resident who resides in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of
the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the
proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in
Glenwood Springs. I believe that the proposed development will have
detrimental effects on our community. Some of concerns are summarized
below:
WATER: Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development
would have a catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently
established. One of the main factors is that we, as a state, have been in a
drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter months to help
with the water levels. There have already been water shortage
experiences during the summer months that have affected not only
homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife. The two years
that Spring Valley Ranch was filling up their reservoir the spring I rely on
was significantly affected.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water
quality and quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system.
Allowing them to utilize large quantities of this precious resource to irrigate
and make snow is irresponsible. Adding the additional 577 housing units,
as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire station, and a South facing
skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would
significantly affect these precious water sources.
FIRE: There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be
another fire in the area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on
the roads then this could cause a problem with roads becoming blocked
making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not to mention the first
responders being able to safely access the area. Having these additional
structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it
more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping
that is there. Spring Valley already has only 3 accessible emergency
routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC: The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created
in the area would affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well
as residents and businesses around the area. The traffic would increase to
become unmanageable, and would not only affect County Road 114 but
County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all of the
different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri
Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase
would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just
not something this area can endure. There would be a significant increase
in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many
problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that
traffic would increase to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not
including the construction traffic that will take place for the proposed 10-12
years.
WILDLIFE: The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has
been returning to the area for the last few years, including elk. Multiple
herds of elk have re-established their migration routes that run through
Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs, High
Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been
returning to the high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek
Fire had pushed them out temporarily. There are a significant number of
deer that have also created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the
surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions
still live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as
a part of their territory for feeding and breeding. This development will
have a major impact on wildlife and would make it extremely difficult for
their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be
forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their
needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for
the Spring Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the
county as well. This development would not benefit the community or the
county, it would be taking away from local businesses and the small town
mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent with many
sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. We need to
keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time.
Rick Carlson
1752 County Road 109
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-948-9650
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA
94043, USA
You have received this email because riccarlson@gmail.com
shared a document with you from Google Docs. Delete visitor
session
Google Workspace
From:William Fales
To:Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky; Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley development
Date:Sunday, September 15, 2024 3:14:32 PM
You don't often get email from cmrmarj@aol.com. Learn why this is important
September 15, 2024
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
The proposed Spring Valley development is too big for this rural area for manyreasons:
The impact on the road from 577 houses.
These 6,000 acres provide critical habitat for deer, elk and all wildlife; as well as
supporting food production, and a ranch that protects the ecosystem values of SpringValley. Our ranching community is historically and culturally important, but alsoecologically needed to support our declining deer and elk populations, raptors, andsongbirds. When land is developed, non-urban bird species decline. Birds areimportant in the control of insects world-wide.
577 houses require water and the development of wells may adversely affect theneighbors’ wells. Upscale developments are a problem across the mountain west,making it harder for middle class people to own houses as the tax basis rises andthey can no longer afford to live in the area.
Please turn down this proposal.
Sincerely,
Marj Perry
Cold Mountain Ranch
Carbondale, CO
From:Ginny Harrington
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Cc:Ginny Harrington; Tom Harrington
Subject:More info to support Denial of Proposed Spring Valley Ranch Development
Date:Sunday, September 15, 2024 8:13:43 PM
Attachments:BCLT news VH article.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ginny.a.harrington@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I received the following info from Erik Glenn of the Colorado Cattlemen's AgriculturalLand Trust in February 2023 when opposing the proposal of a gravel pit in MontroseCounty on farm ground in rural Montrose County directly across from the 40 acres mymom and I own where mom and my brother live. This info is relevant in the Spring
Valley Development Proposal as well as it explores the loss of farm and ranchlands
and its impacts. It also allows some searching by state and county.
Erik states, The best source of data on the conversion subject (Ginny's Note:conversion of farm and ranchlands to commercial or residentialdevelopment/subdivisions) is American Farmland Trusts Farms Under Threat report.(Ginny's Note: I included the report in the previous email sent to you. However, theinfo below expands on this and further pinpoints some state and county data.)
You can access the report here https://farmland.org/project/farms-under-threat/. It
breaks down the data by state and county. (Ginny's note: I did not have the infohandy on the interactive map when I sent you the previous email.) You can accessthe interactive map here: http://development2040.farmland.org/. In the map, clickon Colorado and then click on the approximate location of Garfield. This map alsoprovides a forecast for future loss. Here is the Colorado-specificinfo: https://farmlandinfo.org/statistics/colorado-
statistics/#FU T; https://storage.googleapis.com/csp-fut2040.appspot.com/state-
reports/FUT2040_CO.pdf.
(Ginny's note: Regarding the CSU Cost of goods and services I sent previously as anattachment-- Erik states--In 2003 CSU Extension completed the attached report on the impact of ruralresidential development. Data is outdated but conclusions are still relevant.)
Here are more links I have found in my files regarding the importance of protecting
ranchlands:
http://www.farmland.org/programs/protection/default.asphttps://farmland.org/our-work/keeping-farmers-on-the-land/?mission-area=19
https://farmland.org/our-work/protecting-farmland/?mission-area=6
I have also attached a newsletter from Black Canyon Land Trust in 2006 when I was
working for them. I wrote an article about the importance of keeping ranchlands
intact. I hope you will take time to read it.
9/15/24
I hope you will consider this information and VOTE NO ON THE PROPOSED SPRINGVALLEY RANCH DEVELOPMENT!
Sincerely,
Ginny Harrington
Concerned Rancher
Carbondale, CO
From:Ginny Harrington
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Cc:Ginny Harrington; Tom Harrington
Subject:Letter, documents and links in OPPOSITION TO THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH DEVELOPMENT
Date:Sunday, September 15, 2024 5:16:29 PM
Attachments:rick knight ranching contributes.docx
Maestas et al (2003) Con Bio 17(5) 1425-1434.pdf
RanchersKeystoneSpecies.Rangeland.pdf
CSU cost of community services study.pdf
AFT_cost of goods Making_the_Case_Final.pdf
Cost of County Services - Colorado LUPR 03-03.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ginny.a.harrington@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Sept. 15, 2024
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
My husband and I are residents who reside in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with our
strong opposition to the proposed development of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I am sending these articles and links that support and defend my husband Tom and my opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch Proposed
Development Plan in its entirety. These are articles speaking to the things ranchlands provide that disappear with development and the costs of
such development to communities. Please place these in the record for OPPOSITION TO THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
As ranchers, my husband and I have the lived experience of what ranching and livestock provide for our communities and the environment. We
have lived and worked on ranches for the majority of our lives, at least 50 plus years.
My family roots to ranching in Colorado date back to 1868, in Gardner and the Wet Mountain Valley of Colorado. Then Montrose and Ouray
County from 1879 on. Unfortunately, fate and circumstances through the years would be such, that my family does not have a ranch of our own
since 1971, when I was a mere 8 years old. It was then that my grandfather passed and tax complications forced us off the family place, which was
shortly planted with houses. My dad would support our family by working as a ranch hand, hard rock miner, welder and mechanic.
My mom and brother currently reside on 40 acres in the Spring Creek area of Montrose that my paternal great grandfather and great
grandmother purchased around 1932. They are surrounded by a sheep ranch and some farm ground but there are developments that continue to
encroach in the area. My brother is a ranch foreman for an absentee landowner in and around Montrose and Cimarron. Ranching is in our family
blood. Tom's mom also resides in Montrose. We all lament the unchecked development and growing population that has changed the rural
character of much of Western Colorado and threatens the farms and ranchlands.
My husband Tom has worked for ranches since he was 14. First working on a ranch for Gene Adams and daughter Denise that owned much of
what would later be swallowed up by the Telluride Ski Area. After we were married in the fall of 1981, my husband first worked as a general ranch
hand. First in Delta, then in Ridgway. A wealthy absentee landowner purchased this Ridgway Ranch in 1980 when death taxes would force the
heirs of the previous rancher to sell the ranch. Her heirs were folks who had helped her over the years, as she had no blood relatives living.
Still on the ranch in Ridgway, in 1989 we made the decision to leave. So it was that about nine years out of high school with our seven-year-old
daughter in tow, we went back to college. My husband and I realized we could not afford a ranch of our own and we knew we wanted to continue
working on ranches and in agriculture. It was and is our life passion.
We believed getting a degree to help us be more equipped to handle the increasing challenges animal agriculture imposes would help us to be
marketable as ranch managers. Therefore, we could live out our dream of working and raising our daughter on a ranch, and later see grandkids
learn the value of ranching and agriculture and being stewards of the land, water, environment, wildlife and livestock.
Since receiving his Masters in Ranch Management and Animal Reproduction, in Dec. 1994, Tom has worked as a ranch manager. I received a BS in
Agriculture business at the same time. We have lived and worked in WY, AZ, MT and our home state of CO. Living in Carbondale for the last 16
years.
I have worked in many capacities from accounts payable to producing seedstock/purebred sales catalogs and livestock records for the ranches we
lived and worked on, worked for a land trust, the MT Dept of Ag, Director of the Ouray County Historical Society Museum and writing ranching
history stories for the Ridgway Public Library. I now gladly and proudly work as a ranch wife who rides and cooks for the crew, runs errands and
attends important meetings when others can't be spared.
We both also volunteer and serve on many community organizations including Holy Cross Cattlemen's Assoc., Carbondale Wild West Rodeo,
9/15/24
Roaring Fork Valley Coop and Colorado Cattlemen's Assoc. We work hard to ensure that the general- public understands the importance of
ranchlands and to keep ranching sustainable and viable for future generations. Sometimes it is an uphill battle. Life's challenges and circumstances
shape who we are and having seen and experienced the loss of ranches and ranchland and the impacts of such losses, we feel it is imperative that
we speak up. By speaking up we hope we can save others from experiencing such losses and keep ranch and aglands intact. Tom is currently
serving as the president for CCA for a one-year term from June 2024 to June 2025.
As a 5th generation native to the west slope of Colorado and 16 years living in Carbondale, I have seen the unchecked development eat up acre
after acre of ranchland and it is time to stop the encroachment of development on ranch and rural lands. The proposed Spring Valley Ranch
Development is simply wrong for our community. We are opposed to developing this land at all. We believe its highest and best use is for
ranchland and wildlife habitat.
I share the ecosystem services directly below that ranchlands and ranchers provide. These values or attributes disappear when rural lands/ranch
lands/working wildlands are developed for residential or commercial development. I am for private property rights; however, I believe our
communities cannot withstand the further development of ranchlands without communities losing all that the ranchlands have provided, and
have been valued for since homesteaders first entered the west slope of Colorado.
Ranchlands provide -- Open Space; Scenic Viewsheds; Necessary Wildlife Habitat– Mammals, Birds, Fish; Wetlands; Wildlife Connectivity and
Migration Corridors; Water Filtration; Fire Mitigation, Preserving Natural Plant Communities; Soil Erosion Reduction; Carbon Sequestration;
Cultural & Historical Significance, Character of Rural Communities; Food & Fiber.
American Farmland Trusts Threat Report
Research reported in a July 18, 2022 article stating,
“If recent trends continue, 417,500 acres of Colorado’s farmland and ranchland will be paved over, fragmented, or converted to uses that
jeopardize agriculture by 2040. That represents an area more than four times larger than the city of Denver. In the worst-case scenario of
runaway sprawl, Colorado could lose as much as 525,300 acres of farmland. 53% of the conversion will occur on Colorado’s best land.”
I have provided links and attached documents that speak to the importance of keeping ranchlands intact and the risks of rural
development/exurban development and costs of said development of ranchlands. Or as Professor Emeritus Rick Knight of Colorado State
University calls them, 'working wildlands.'
Rick Knight
Rick is a Professor Emeritus of wildlife conservation at CSU and is interested in the intersection of land use and land health in the American West.
He is a five-time recipient of the students’ choice for Outstanding Faculty Member in the Warner College of Natural Resources at CSU, and he sits
on a number of boards, including the Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust, the Science Board of the Malpai Borderlands Group, the Land
Conservation Assistance Network, and Rocky Mountain Land Library.
Here are two links, one is an article written by Rick Knight, PhD.
https://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-message-to-environmentalists-from-a-wildlifebiologist/
https://farmland.org/new-report-smarter-land-use-planning-is-urgently-needed-to-safeguard-ag-land-in-arizona-colorado-new-mexico-and-
nevada-amidst-historic-drought/#:~:text=In%20the%20worst-
case%20scenario%20of%20runaway%20sprawl%2C%20Colorado,could%20save%20258%2C100%20acres%20of%20farmland%20and%20ranchland
I hope you will consider my words and the words of others and my husband Tom and our plea to VOTE NO ON THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
Sincerely,
Ginny (and Tom) Harrington
Carbondale ranchers
From:Ginny Harrington
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Cc:Tom Harrington
Subject:Re: Letter, documents and links in OPPOSITION TO THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH DEVELOPMENT
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 9:14:21 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ginny.a.harrington@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
Please do not approve this extreme development proposal by Storied Development LLC. More golf courses using water that has been traditionally
used to provide water for livestock and wildlife and grow forage is not the way to go. Replacing the ranchland and wildlife habitat and corridors of
6,000 acres with 577 homes and amenities of playgrounds for wealthy second homeowners doesn’t sit right with this ranch girl. I have watched this
type of story repeat itself over and over again in Western Colorado and specifically Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle County. We’ve got to stop catering to
development and have serious conversations and take measures to preserve the things that make our community special and have drawn people to
visit and live here. Do not destroy our community by continuing to approve developments like this proposal. “At Spring Valley, the development will
include houses priced at $5 million to $6 million on 10-acre lots that sell for $2 million. A private golf community with an 18-hole golf course, a nine-
hole “short course,” a clubhouse, a small, private ski hill on southwest-facing slopes and about 20 miles of trails with limited public access.” (Aspen
Daily News Feb. 23, 2024) https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/577-home-project-in-garfield-county-back-on-the-table/article_33863df4-d215-
11ee-aa5a-e3c8a69422ba.html
The proposal and the representatives from Storied have spread half-truths or inaccuracies when talking about the proposal. Such as the following,
“This is an extraordinary piece of property. It’s not going to stay fallow,” Enderle said. The property has not been fallow, and I don’t consider
planting houses a crop. A local ranch family has leased the property for 45 years contributing to the economy, raising local food and providing for
wildlife. “(Colorado Parks and Wildlife) would just as soon it stays as it is,” Enderle acknowledged. But since that is unlikely to happen, it is advising
Storied Development on its plan to create 1,110 acres of “wildlife habitat reserves” that would be closed to humans during winters and spring
reproduction.” With all the human activity and fragmentation of the wildlife habitat I don’t see this as a valid tradeoff for removing 6,000 acres from
ranchlands and wildlife habitat and corridors.
“Ranches are critical to the Rocky Mountain region, serving as the West’s water towers, food providers, land stewards and hubs of local economies
and communities.” July 2021 CSU Warner College of Natural Resources (stated) in launching a new ranch management and ecosystem stewardship
new master’s program.
An article in Wyoming Livestock Roundup on July 27, 2009 reports on work done by Rick Knight, CSU Professor of Wildlife Conservation, Department
of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Warner College of Natural Resources.
Here is the link to that article. Rick Knight speaks to the costs of subdivisions and the loss of ranchlands and food
production. https://www.wylr.net/2009/07/27/csus-knight-ranchers-provide-connection-between-food-and-open-space/
According to Knight, the ecology of ranching comes into play when considering that ranching minimizes fragmentation and keeps the West open.
“In the alternative land use, homes perforate the landscape, which is dissected by roads,” he noted, adding that gives the same “natural heritage” of
a Fort Collins, Colo. suburb. “Those areas support the same biodiversity – robins, magpies, garter snakes, skunks and raccoons – instead of mountain
lions, bears and big game.”
In a response to me, dated August 22, 2024, Professor Rick Knight states, “rural developments promote deficit spending, ecological decline, and
cultural loss.”
Please consider info and enter into record these articles/studies and the following links speaking to the case for conservation of and keeping
ranchlands intact:
https://farmlandinfo.org/publications/cost-of-community-services-studies-making-the-case-for-conservation/
Other studies
https://csuredi.org/authors/andrew-seidl/
There are enough golf courses, hiking and biking trails, and housing developments catering to the second home owners and wealthy clientele. There
is no going back to ranchland and wildlife habitat once land is fragmented, paved over and houses planted. I am pleading to the planning committee
and Garfield County Commissioners and planning staff to keep the Spring Valley Ranch as ranchland and wildlife habitat for all citizens of and visitors
to Garfield County to cherish for generations to come. Please don’t play a role in taking more lands out of agricultural production and wildlife
habitat. Keeping this 6,000 acres as ranchland and wildlife habitat would be an example of making a wise decision that future generations will truly
appreciate for the contributions of ecosystem services and keeping ranchers on the land.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ginny Harrington
Rancher
Carbondale, CO
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 5:13 PM Ginny Harrington <ginny.a.harrington@gmail.com> wrote:
Sept. 15, 2024
9/16/24
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
My husband and I are residents who reside in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with our
strong opposition to the proposed development of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I am sending these articles and links that support and defend my husband Tom and my opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch Proposed
Development Plan in its entirety. These are articles speaking to the things ranchlands provide that disappear with development and the costs of
such development to communities. Please place these in the record for OPPOSITION TO THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
As ranchers, my husband and I have the lived experience of what ranching and livestock provide for our communities and the environment. We
have lived and worked on ranches for the majority of our lives, at least 50 plus years.
My family roots to ranching in Colorado date back to 1868, in Gardner and the Wet Mountain Valley of Colorado. Then Montrose and Ouray
County from 1879 on. Unfortunately, fate and circumstances through the years would be such, that my family does not have a ranch of our own
since 1971, when I was a mere 8 years old. It was then that my grandfather passed and tax complications forced us off the family place, which was
shortly planted with houses. My dad would support our family by working as a ranch hand, hard rock miner, welder and mechanic.
My mom and brother currently reside on 40 acres in the Spring Creek area of Montrose that my paternal great grandfather and great
grandmother purchased around 1932. They are surrounded by a sheep ranch and some farm ground but there are developments that continue to
encroach in the area. My brother is a ranch foreman for an absentee landowner in and around Montrose and Cimarron. Ranching is in our family
blood. Tom's mom also resides in Montrose. We all lament the unchecked development and growing population that has changed the rural
character of much of Western Colorado and threatens the farms and ranchlands.
My husband Tom has worked for ranches since he was 14. First working on a ranch for Gene Adams and daughter Denise that owned much of
what would later be swallowed up by the Telluride Ski Area. After we were married in the fall of 1981, my husband first worked as a general ranch
hand. First in Delta, then in Ridgway. A wealthy absentee landowner purchased this Ridgway Ranch in 1980 when death taxes would force the
heirs of the previous rancher to sell the ranch. Her heirs were folks who had helped her over the years, as she had no blood relatives living.
Still on the ranch in Ridgway, in 1989 we made the decision to leave. So it was that about nine years out of high school with our seven-year-old
daughter in tow, we went back to college. My husband and I realized we could not afford a ranch of our own and we knew we wanted to continue
working on ranches and in agriculture. It was and is our life passion.
We believed getting a degree to help us be more equipped to handle the increasing challenges animal agriculture imposes would help us to be
marketable as ranch managers. Therefore, we could live out our dream of working and raising our daughter on a ranch, and later see grandkids
learn the value of ranching and agriculture and being stewards of the land, water, environment, wildlife and livestock.
Since receiving his Masters in Ranch Management and Animal Reproduction, in Dec. 1994, Tom has worked as a ranch manager. I received a BS in
Agriculture business at the same time. We have lived and worked in WY, AZ, MT and our home state of CO. Living in Carbondale for the last 16
years.
I have worked in many capacities from accounts payable to producing seedstock/purebred sales catalogs and livestock records for the ranches we
lived and worked on, worked for a land trust, the MT Dept of Ag, Director of the Ouray County Historical Society Museum and writing ranching
history stories for the Ridgway Public Library. I now gladly and proudly work as a ranch wife who rides and cooks for the crew, runs errands and
attends important meetings when others can't be spared.
We both also volunteer and serve on many community organizations including Holy Cross Cattlemen's Assoc., Carbondale Wild West Rodeo,
Roaring Fork Valley Coop and Colorado Cattlemen's Assoc. We work hard to ensure that the general- public understands the importance of
ranchlands and to keep ranching sustainable and viable for future generations. Sometimes it is an uphill battle. Life's challenges and circumstances
shape who we are and having seen and experienced the loss of ranches and ranchland and the impacts of such losses, we feel it is imperative that
we speak up. By speaking up we hope we can save others from experiencing such losses and keep ranch and aglands intact. Tom is currently
serving as the president for CCA for a one-year term from June 2024 to June 2025.
As a 5th generation native to the west slope of Colorado and 16 years living in Carbondale, I have seen the unchecked development eat up acre
after acre of ranchland and it is time to stop the encroachment of development on ranch and rural lands. The proposed Spring Valley Ranch
Development is simply wrong for our community. We are opposed to developing this land at all. We believe its highest and best use is for
ranchland and wildlife habitat.
I share the ecosystem services directly below that ranchlands and ranchers provide. These values or attributes disappear when rural lands/ranch
lands/working wildlands are developed for residential or commercial development. I am for private property rights; however, I believe our
communities cannot withstand the further development of ranchlands without communities losing all that the ranchlands have provided, and
have been valued for since homesteaders first entered the west slope of Colorado.
Ranchlands provide -- Open Space; Scenic Viewsheds; Necessary Wildlife Habitat– Mammals, Birds, Fish; Wetlands; Wildlife Connectivity and
Migration Corridors; Water Filtration; Fire Mitigation, Preserving Natural Plant Communities; Soil Erosion Reduction; Carbon Sequestration;
Cultural & Historical Significance, Character of Rural Communities; Food & Fiber.
American Farmland Trusts Threat Report
Research reported in a July 18, 2022 article stating,
“If recent trends continue, 417,500 acres of Colorado’s farmland and ranchland will be paved over, fragmented, or converted to uses that
jeopardize agriculture by 2040. That represents an area more than four times larger than the city of Denver. In the worst-case scenario of
runaway sprawl, Colorado could lose as much as 525,300 acres of farmland. 53% of the conversion will occur on Colorado’s best land.”
I have provided links and attached documents that speak to the importance of keeping ranchlands intact and the risks of rural
development/exurban development and costs of said development of ranchlands. Or as Professor Emeritus Rick Knight of Colorado State
University calls them, 'working wildlands.'
Rick Knight
Rick is a Professor Emeritus of wildlife conservation at CSU and is interested in the intersection of land use and land health in the American West.
He is a five-time recipient of the students’ choice for Outstanding Faculty Member in the Warner College of Natural Resources at CSU, and he sits
on a number of boards, including the Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust, the Science Board of the Malpai Borderlands Group, the Land
Conservation Assistance Network, and Rocky Mountain Land Library.
Here are two links, one is an article written by Rick Knight, PhD.
https://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-message-to-environmentalists-from-a-wildlifebiologist/
https://farmland.org/new-report-smarter-land-use-planning-is-urgently-needed-to-safeguard-ag-land-in-arizona-colorado-new-mexico-and-
nevada-amidst-historic-drought/#:~:text=In%20the%20worst-
case%20scenario%20of%20runaway%20sprawl%2C%20Colorado,could%20save%20258%2C100%20acres%20of%20farmland%20and%20ranchland
I hope you will consider my words and the words of others and my husband Tom and our plea to VOTE NO ON THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
Sincerely,
Ginny (and Tom) Harrington
Carbondale ranchers
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners, I am a resident who resides in Mesa County in the
DeBeque area. We have lived there, raised our kids, and farmed for over 30 years. I am writing to
the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the proposed
development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs. I believe that the
proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community. Some of concerns are
summarized below:
Growth always comes with a cost that often isn’t fully understood or considered when town
planners approve a large development on a farm/ranch property. In western Colorado farms and
ranches contribute to our food supply, create and maintain habitat for wildlife, manage soil health
and prevent sediment runoff, and add to the carbon sequestration cycle.
The people associated with Colorado working farms and ranches are vital members of our
communities. They raise kids, coach sports, become 4h leaders, and are on school boards and
ditch boards. This is more the norm than the exception.
Subdivision and big developments always need more infrastructure add-ons and financial support
down the road, examples are municipal water and sewer expansions, bigger and more roads and
traffic lights. All this causes taxes to increase for the citizens that already live on the western slope.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire station, and
a South facing skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would significantly affect
these precious all the overtaxed sources in the area.
I encourage the decision makers n Garfield County to vote No on approving this development,
Don & Diana Metzler
2045 45 ½ Road
DeBeque, CO 81630
970 260-7556
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I am a resident of Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners
office, with my strong opposition to the proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch,
located in Glenwood Springs. I believe that the proposed development will have several detrimental
effects on our community. Some of my concerns are summarized below:
WATER: Water is one of my utmost concerns. This proposed development would have a catastrophic
effect on the water source that is currently under consideration. Our region has been in a drought for
more than 15 years, affecting the entire Colorado River water system with unpredictable winter months
depleting the local and regional water supply. There have already been water shortage experiences
during the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this area but also the livestock
and wildlife. The two years that Spring Valley Ranch was filling up their reservoir, the quality and
quantity spring I rely on was significantly affected. Allowing them to utilize large quantities of this
precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible. Adding the additional 577 housing units,
as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire station, and a South facing skiing and sledding hill that
the developers are proposing, would significantly affect these precious water sources. They propose to
use in excess of 1 million gallons per day eual to approximately 3 acre-feet (about 3 football fields 1 foot
deep).
FIRE: There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another wildfire in the area
today. In the event of a nearby fire roads will become blocked, making it difficult for residents to get out
safely, not to mention the first responders ability to safely access the area. Having these additional
structures so close to each other would increase the chances of fire, and make it more difficult to
control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only
3 accessible emergency routes, one of which (Red Canyon) is very dangerous.
TRAFFIC: The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would affect the
residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses around the area. The traffic
would become unmanageable, and would affect County Roads 114, 115, 119, 110, and all of the
different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, towards Missouri Heights , Cottonwood Pass and
Eagle. The road usage increase would create more auto accidents, dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and
noise. There would be a significant increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is
already a daily NASCAR race with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would
increase to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
WILDLIFE: The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area since
the Grizzly Creek Fire. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration routes that run through
Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding
areas. Black bears have also been returning to the high mountains of the area. There are a significant
number of deer that call Spring Valley and the surrounding areas home, as well as the white-tailed
jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a
part of their territory for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact on wildlife
and would make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding forcing them to move to
another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to survive. Please consider the negative
impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring
residents and the county as well.
This development will not benefit the community or the county and is just not something this area can
endure. It will take away from local businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It is
inconsistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural as we can and not let more of the entitled few overrun
this beautiful area that we call home.
Thank you for your time,
Steve Willcut
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 3:42:18 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Here is another one.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfield-county.com
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Brooke Winschell <bwinschell@garfield-
county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Please don't approve the Spring Valley Ranch proposal
Name: Jackie Warncke
Email: jackieoh@gmail.com
Phone Number: (301) 602-9579
Message: My name is Jacqueline Warncke, my husband and I resides at 230
Meadow Wood Rd and are property owners at 3504 Elk Springs Drive. I am writing to
the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to
the proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood
Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our
community. Some of my concerns are summarized below:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main
factors is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with
inconsistent winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been
water shortage experiences during the summer months that have affected not only
homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize
large quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general
store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are
proposing, would significantly affect these precious water sources.
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the
area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could
cause a problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get
out safely, not to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area.
Having these additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel
and make it more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current
landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 2 accessible emergency
routes, without any additional traffic.
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would
affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses
around the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not
only affect County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road
110, and all of the different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards
Missouri Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase
would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not
something this area can endure. There would be a significant increase in traffic that
would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many problems with the
volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to 5,700
trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area
for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their
migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout
Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have
also been returning to the high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek
Fire had pushed them out temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that
have also created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as
well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley,
Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory for feeding and
breeding.
This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it extremely
difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be
forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to
survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring
Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This
development would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away
from local businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not
be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Given that we have not yet started to build, this issue gives us great pause and we
are considering selling our property in Elk Springs pending the outcome of the
proposed development. All the things that drew us to the area (the wildlife, the fire
safety in place in Elk Springs and the water availability) are now things we find are
being threatened and cause great risk to our dream home. Please don’t forsake all of
us who own in the area for out-of-town developers who do not have a vested interest
in our community.
September 16, 2024
Garfield County Administratfon & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
My name is Ted Benge, I am a resident of Garfield County, with address at 403 S 2nd St, Carbondale, CO
81623. I am a Carbondale natfve, a hunter who relies on wild game meat, an outiitter whose livelihood
depends upon the protectfon of natural beauty and robust wildlife herds, a young community member
with a long-term vision, and a voter. I am writfng to urge the board of the Garfield County
Commissioners office to oppose the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment.
The soul of our county character is rooted in nature and open space, and our community is dependent
upon careful long-term planning to maintain livability. The primary concerns of many of our citfzens,
your constftuents, are threats to wildlife and open space, and a severe lack of affordable housing. The
proposed development, which would affect nearly 6,000 acres of pristfne wildlife habitat and include
two golf courses, and private (south-facing) ski resort, and vast amenitfes, fails to address either concern
and is inconsistent with the housing, open space and agricultural visions outlined in the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan 2030.
Are we willing to sacrifice one of the most important contfguous habitat parcels remaining in the Valley
for another luxury second home development? Is the transfer tax worth the loss of open space and
increased strain on infrastructure?
We must accept trade-offs as our region contfnues to grow. There will be tfmes when development is
sensible in rural locatfons to provide efficient affordable housing. The SVR PUD amendment, if approved,
would fail on all fronts.
Our area is renowned for its natural beauty and abundant wildlife. Many of us residents struggle through
the challenging local economic dynamics for the opportunity to live a life close to nature. Our mountains
would feel vacant and dead without the wild creatures whose presence not only helps to drive a
booming local recreatfon and huntfng economy, but whose existence has inherent value separate from
what humans extract or enjoy.
Wildlife in our region is under unprecedented pressure, and, if approved, the Spring Valley Ranch
development would irreversibly destroy critfcal elk winter habitat and calving grounds, deer winter
habitat, and habitat crucial to the survival of thousands of other species. While the developers assert
that their plan includes wildlife refuge areas and maintains open space, the refuge habitat will be highly
fragmented and unviable, and their open space calculatfon includes golf course acreage.
It is undeniable that this development would be devastatfng to local wildlife and confirm the growing
local suspicion that new governance values development above all else. The CPW has refused to sign off
on the SPR PUD proposal, and has outlined at length the cumulatfve impacts of increased human
presence, habitat fragmentatfon, and the outright destructfon of our natural heritage. I need not rehash
all CPW’s findings here, but stress that my observatfons over a lifetfme spent in the mountains confirm
intense stress, declining herds and changing migratfon patterns. I foresee a bleak outlook for wildlife
unless we make actfons today to protect habitat into perpetuity.
The proposed development would permanently destroy habitat to create a luxury second home
compound built around a golfing lifestyle. Is this tradeoff in the best long-term interest of your
constftuents, who value nature and who are already faced with a lack of affordable housing, growing
strain on our infrastructure?
Thank you for your consideratfon.
Best Regards,
Ted Benge
From:Janna Six
To:Philip Berry; Glenn Hartmann
Subject:Comments Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendments
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:40:12 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from jannasix@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Dear Glenn and Phillip,
Please accept and share my comments (below) to Garfield County Planning Commission and
County Commissioners regarding the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendments (File PUAA-05-23-
8967).
As a full and now a part time Garfield County resident since 1988, I’ve watched residents and
businesses move into the area. Development is creeping onto agricultural lands and open space.
Where should the County draw the line in “preserving the rural character” and “protecting wildlife
corridors, natural habitats, important viewsheds and other critical open space” (from the Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan of 2030).
Does the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment cross the line of acceptable development? Is it
proposing Smart Growth for Garfield County or a Jackpot for Developers?
Smart Growth (Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth Self-Assessment for Rural
Communities). These goals help prioritize strategies and identify low-hanging fruit that can move a
community closer to its economic, social, and environmental goals.
· Revitalize Town Centers
· Strengthen the Local Economy
· Engage and Connect Community Members
· Improve Health and Promote Active Living
· Protect Natural Habitats and Ecosystems
· Support Productive Agriculture for a Variety of Markets
· Meet Housing Needs for Different Ages and Incomes
· Preserve Historic and Cultural Resources
· Provide Transportation Choices
· Invest in Efficient Public Infrastructure Systems and Operations
· Use Energy Efficiently and Provide Renewable Energy
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment accomplishes none of these Smart Growth goals. The
proposed 75 affordable housing units will be just enough to house workers needed to maintain the
subdivision and will not be a net benefit to the community.
Jackpot for Developers looking for a large financial return with the least amount of effort, time,
cost.
· Being allowed to resurrect a 16+year old PUD, that was approved under a different
scenario of the future of the County and different leadership
·
Claiming that there is enough water for 577 homes, 2 golf courses, and a ski hill without
detrimentally impacting any other water users downstream – while independent
engineering studies question many of the points in the hydrogeology studies completed by
the developer
· Adding a large stock of unaffordable housing, which is more profitable to developers
· Destroying essential wildlife habitat and open space for the sake of profits and private
landowners’ pleasure
· Scarring a majestic, natural viewshed, second only to Mount Sopris in the County
· Increasing traffic congestion and accidents on Highway 82 and County Road 114,
shutting down roads critical to operations at Colorado Mountain College and cities along the
highway
· Not contributing enough infrastructure or paying enough development fees for this
residential growth to pay its own way.
· Having the County shackled to the long term financial burden and responsibility for
infrastructure for a distant suburb – from roads to police protection to waste treatment
· Phased development over 25 years for which the Master Developers will not be held
accountable
· Stealing the rural character of Spring Valley from neighboring land owners, ranchers and
recreationists
· Once infrastructure is built for Spring Valley Ranch, other developers will be attracted to
the region.
The Garfield County communities I want to see in the future are resilient. They have “the ability to
rebound, positively adapt to, or thrive amidst changing conditions or challenges - including human-
caused and natural disasters, and to maintain quality of life, healthy growth, durable systems,
economic vitality and conservation of resources for present and future generations.” The Colorado
Disaster Emergency Act in 2018 (HB 18-1394).
Section Six of Garfield County’s own Comprehensive Development Plan promotes the continuation
and expansion of agricultural uses; preserve a significant rural character in the county; and preserve
scenic and visual corridors in the county.
Please draw the line on development by rejecting the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment.
Thank you.
Janna Six
1044 Highway 325, Rifle, CO 81650
303-530-2222
jannasix@gmail.com
From:Phil Armstrong
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Subject:Letter of Opposition to Spring Valley Ranch
Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 2:29:16 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from laminarenergy@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
I live in Garfield County, at 80 Oak Run Rd, in Carbondale. I work here, live here, hunt here,
raise a family here, and care about the future of our County like each of you do. The Spring
Valley Ranch development is NOT what we need here in Garfield County. It is not a part of
our rural and mostly working class character. The negatives that come with this development
far outweigh the economic benefits. We do not need this. Please do what you can to oppose
this development.
If you do not oppose and try to restrict this development, I will not be voting for you in the
future.
Phil Armstrong
Garfield County Resident
From:Tyler Stableford
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Mike Samson; John Martin; Tom Jankovsky
Subject:Comments for Spring Valley Ranch development meeting
Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 12:02:53 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from tylerstableford@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Hi Garfield County friends,
I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your work serving our great community here!
My name is Tyler Stableford, I am a Garfield County resident living at 1399 Rock Court in
Carbondale, Colorado and I have been a resident of Garfield County for 27 years.
I am writing to encourage the Garfield County Commissioners to reject the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD Amendment.
The essence of our county's identity is deeply tied to its natural landscapes and open spaces.
Preserving our quality of life relies on thoughtful, long-term planning. Many of your
constituents share concerns about the threats to our wildlife and open areas, as well as the
severe shortage of affordable housing. The proposed development, which would impact nearly
6,000 acres of untouched wildlife habitat and include two golf courses, a private ski resort, and
extensive amenities, does not address these key issues. In fact, it contradicts the goals laid out
in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 regarding housing, open space, and
agriculture.
It is clear to me that the potential revenue from a transfer tax is not worth the loss of open
space and the additional burden on our county’s infrastructure.
As our region grows, we need to weigh development decisions carefully. There may be
instances where rural development may be necessary to provide affordable housing. However,
the Spring Valley Ranch PUD amendment would fail in this regard.
Our community is known for its stunning natural beauty and abundant wildlife. Many
residents endure the local economic challenges for the privilege of living close to nature. The
absence of wildlife would strip our mountains of life and vitality. These animals not only
support our local recreation and hunting industries, but their presence also holds intrinsic
value, independent of human use.
Wildlife in our region is already facing immense pressures, and the proposed Spring Valley
Ranch development would irreversibly damage key elk wintering areas, calving grounds, and
deer habitat, along with vital ecosystems that support countless other species. Although the
developers claim they will preserve wildlife areas and open space, their plans involve
fragmented and unviable habitats, with golf courses misleadingly included in their open space
calculations.
It’s clear this development would have devastating consequences for our local wildlife,
reinforcing the growing concern that our governance prioritizes development over
preservation. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has refused to endorse the PUD proposal,
citing the harmful cumulative effects of increased human activity, habitat fragmentation, and
destruction of our natural heritage. My own lifetime spent in these mountains echoes CPW’s
findings: wildlife populations are under significant stress, herds are declining, and migration
patterns are shifting. Without decisive action now, the future for our wildlife looks grim. (And
to be clear, as a hunter, I believe CPW has grossly mismanaged hunting in our region and has
overseen a wholesale slaughter of our elk herds on their watch. I am communicating with them
as well.)
This development would destroy critical habitats to create a luxury enclave focused on a
golfing lifestyle. Is this really in the best interest of the people you represent, who value nature
and are already struggling with a lack of affordable housing and growing infrastructure
demands?
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Tyler
--
Tyler Stableford
970-319-9009 (c)
tylerstableford@gmail.com
October IO,2024
Garfi eld Cou nty Administration & Com missioners
1OB 8th Street, Suite L01"
Glenwood Springs, CO 8L601
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
My name is Patty L. Frederick. I am a resident who resides at3720 County Road 115. I am writing to the
board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the proposed
development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community. Some of my
concerns are summarized below:
1. WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a catastrophic
effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors is that we,
as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter months
to help with the water levels. There have already been water shortage experiences during
the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this area but also the
livestock and wildlife.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues fbr the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize large
quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the addition al 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general store, a
fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would
significantly affect these precious water sources.
2. FIRE + SAFETY:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in ihe area
today. lf there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could cause a problem
with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not to
mention the first responders being able to safely access the area. Having these additional
structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it more difficult to
control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring Valley
already has only 2 accessible emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
3. TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would affect the
residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses around the area
The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not only affect County
L
Road 114 but County Road 1l-5, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all ofthe different
road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri Heights and Cottonwood
Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create more dust, pollution, wildlife
collisions and noise, This is just not something this area can endure. There would be a
significant increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many
problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase
to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 1L4 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 1.0-L2 years.
4. WILDIIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area for
the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration
routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs,
High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Blacl< bears have also bccn rcturning to the high
mourrtains of the area, even afterthe Gri:ziy Creek Fire ha'J pusfrerj thenr outtemporarily.
There are a significant number of deer that have also created a home all throughout Spring
Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jacl<rabbits. Mountain lions still
live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory
for feeding and breeding.
This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it extremely difficult
for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be forced to move
to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposcd dcvclopmcnt fclr thc Spring Vallcy Ranch would
have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development would not benefit the
community or the county, it would be taking away from local businesses and the small town mountain
charm we have. lt would also not be consistent with many secijons of the Garfielci County 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time,
ilay ,1 /tw l.^*Jz
2
October 14,2024
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Spring Valley Ranch proposed development by Storied Development
Dear Commissioners Jankovsky, Samson, and Martin:
My name is Lydia Frederick, and my two brothers and I own the property at3720 CR 115, where our
mother has lived since the early 1980s.
I am writing to you to add my voice in strong opposition to the proposed development plans of the
Spring Valley Ranch.
One of the big draws to our mom's house is the abundant wildlife throughout the year: lark buntings
and stellar jays at her bird bath, coots at Quigley's Pond, deer coming through her property to get a
drink at the bird bath, the howls of coyotes late at night, the herds of elk roaming through neighboring
pastures, and even the shepherds moving their sheep along CR 115 to higher ground.
The proposed development for SVR will have a major negative impact on the wildlife, making it
difficult for their migration routes, and increasing the risk of being hit by traffic. The estimate of over
5,000 additional cars traveling along CR 1 15 and II4 practically guarantees more accidents between
vehicles and wildlife.
My family and I, which now includes grandchildren and great grandchildren, have witnessed the
increase in traffic, not only along CR 115, but along CR I 14 and Highway 82 as well. The valley has
seen many more houses built, yet the area retains its rural feel. But the demands of constructing this
development means that during the build-out time, there will be many more trucks and equipment using
these roads, competing with the local traffic that already exists. And once the project is complete, the
estimated 5,000+ cars using these country roads will put an added burden on the County to maintain
them.
Another concern with the proposed project is the tremendous draw on the aquifers which in turn could
negatively impact the existing household wells in the area. In addition, the threat of wildfires and the
need for adequate water to fight these fires and protect homes is a yearly woffy. Colorado, especially
the Western Slope, has experienced years of drought, and the idea of building multiple golf courses
AND a ski slope in Spring Valley, which will require huge amounts of water to maintain, shows a lack
of knowledge of Garfield County's environment.
In summary this proposed development would destroy the bucolic setting of Spring Valley, harm the
wildlife, drain precious water from the aquifer and add to the traffic congestion already existing on
Hwy. 82, as well as CR 115, 1 14, and the other roads through the area.
Is Garfield County so desperate for revenue that the commissioners are willing to grant this
preposterous development a green light? Please vote against this proposal for Spring Valley Ranch.
Sincerely,
MLS
2560 So. WolffSt.
Denver, CO 80219
,/'(-'
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry; Heather MacDonald
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Monday, February 10, 2025 8:28:31 AM
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 8:25 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Subject: Halt the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment
Name: Evan Weger
Email: evan.weger@yahoo.com
Phone Number:
Message: Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Commissioners,
My name is Evan Weger. I am a resident who resides at 1622 Cooper Avenue. I am
writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong
opposition to the proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located
in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our
community. Some of my concerns are summarized below:
1. WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a
catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main
factors is that we, as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with
inconsistent winter months to help with the water levels. There have already been
water shortage experiences during the summer months that have affected not only
homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize
large quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as a 200-acre golf course, a general
store, a fire station, and a possible skiing and sledding hill that the developers are
proposing, would significantly affect these precious water sources.
2. FIRE + SAFETY:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the
area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could
cause a problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get
out safely, not to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area.
Having these additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel
and make it more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current
landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 2 accessible emergency
routes, without any additional traffic.
3. TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would
affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses
around the area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not
only affect County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road
110, and all of the different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards
Missouri Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase
would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not
something this area can endure. There would be a significant increase in traffic that
would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many problems with the
volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to 5,700
trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will
take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
4. WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area
for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their
migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout
Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have
also been returning to the high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek
Fire had pushed them out temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that
have also created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as
well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley,
Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory for feeding and
breeding.
This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would make it extremely
difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be
forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to
survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring
Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This
development would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away
from local businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not
be consistent with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time,
Evan Weger
Kara Edewaard
663 Elk Springs Dr.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
kedewaard@gmail.com
817-319-1594
February 10,2025
Garfield Gou nty Gommun lty Development Department
Attn: Planning Division
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Board of Gounty Commissioners
Garfield County Administration
108 8th Street, Suite 213
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Water Use and Supply Goncerns and Recommendations
Regarding the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Garfield County Planners and Honorable Commissioners,
I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
and to highlight significant gaps in the Storied Development Updated Aquifer Sustainability
Study and Updated Water Supply & Distribution Plan. Based on a review of reports prepared by
Matrix Design Group for Garfield County, and SGM for the Elk Springs HOA, several key issues
remain unresolved, raising serious questions about the long-term sustainability of the proposed
development's water supply.
Key Goncerns from Matrlx Deslgn Group and SGM
1. Limited Water $upply - Recharge rates may be overestimated, leading to aquifer
depletion over time.
2. Overstated Well Capacity - Short pump tests do not confirm long-term well
sustainability.
3. Underestimated lrrlgation Demand - The projected golf course and residential
irrigation needs may exceed estimates.
4. lnsufficient Storage & Emergency Plannlng - There is no drought contingency plan or
alternative water supply in case of shortages.
5. Stormwater & Sewer lssues - A lack of detailed runoff and wastewater impact analysis
raises environmental concerns.
1
Responses from Storied Development Water Supply & Aquifer Studies
r The reports cite aquifer storage but lack long-term groundwater flow analysis.
r Well rehabilitation is planned, but there is no long-term monitoring commitment.
r lrrigation demand calculations retain optimistic efficiency assumptions (80%), despite
expert concerns that 67% is more realistic.
r Additional water storage capacity has been added, but there is no backup supply plan in
case of emergency.
o Basic stormwater and wastewater plans exist, but there is no extreme weather event
modeling.
Comparison of Key Goncerns & Remaining Gaps
Remaining Gaps & Recommendations
To ensure a sustainable and responsible approach to development, the following actions should
be required before approval of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment:
1. Recharge Estimates Need Validation - Conduct long-term hydrogeologic studies to
confirm sustainability.
2. Well Performance Needs Monitoring - lmplement ongoing aquifer monitoring to track
drawdown on nearby wells over time.
3. lrrigation Demand Needs Reassessment - Adjust irrigation efficiency assumptions to
realistic values.
4. Emergency Planning Lacks Detail - Define drought response strategies & alternative
water supply plans.
2
lssue Matrlx Design & SGM
Goncern
Response & Remaining Gaps
Sustainable Water
Supply
Recharge may be
overestimated
No new recharge validation; loss to
rivers unknown
Well Capacity Short pump tests; no long-term
data
Rehabilitation planned, but no
monitoring commitment
lrrigation Demand Golf & residential use may be
underestimated
Kept high efficiency assumptions
(80%)
Water Storage Tanks may not support peak
demand
Added storage but lacks emergency
backup source
Stormwater &
Sewer
Runoff & wastewater impact
unclear
Basic plans included, but no extreme
event modeling
O. Stormwater & Wastewater Require More Study - Conduct extreme event modeling for
runoff & wastewater imPact.
Gonclusion & Next Steps
While some concerns have been addressed, critical gaps remain in aquifer sustainability,
irrigation demand, emergency planning, and stormwater management. More data, long-term
monitoring, and contingency planning are necessary before final approval.
I urge Garfield County and the BOCC to require further hydrogeologic studies, updated irrigation
demand calculations, and emergency water supply plans before moving forward with this
approval of this PUD amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns.
I appreciate your commitment to responsible land use planning and look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
Kara Edewaard
3
Kara Edewaard
663 Elk Springs Drive
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
kedewaard@gmail.com
March 31, 2025
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
To:
Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Planner
Garfield County Planning Commissioners
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
RE: Wildlife Concerns Regarding Spring Valley Ranch PUD (PUAA-05-23-8967)
Dear Mr. Hartmann, Mr. Berry, Commissioners, and Members of the Board,
I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the wildlife impacts of the proposed
Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Modification/Amendment. After reviewing the
Referral Comment Packet dated October 28, 2024, and particularly the detailed
comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), it is clear that the proposed
development presents significant environmental risks that warrant stronger oversight
and mitigation.
CPW has declined to sign the Wildlife Baseline Conditions and Mitigation Plan, citing
insufficient avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to critical habitats. The
project area lies within high-priority wildlife habitats, including:
- Elk winter concentration areas (See Exhibit A)
- Elk production/calving areas (See Exhibit A)
- Mule deer winter range (See Exhibit B)
- Black bear and mountain lion ranges
- Habitat for sensitive plant species such as Harrington’s Penstemon
Despite claims in the applicant’s documents, CPW clarified that the development does
not truly avoid impacts to these habitats. Instead, it fragments and degrades essential
wildlife corridors, limits species mobility, and contributes to the broader pattern of
3/31/25
cumulative habitat loss in the region. The proposed recreation infrastructure, including
15–20 miles of new mountain biking trails, will further stress wildlife and erode habitat
integrity unless carefully redesigned and restricted.
Compounding these impacts is the fact that the highest housing density in the plan—the
proposed deed-restricted housing—is located squarely within elk production and winter
concentration areas, further intensifying pressures on some of the most sensitive
habitat. This location choice is especially troubling given the County's own wildlife
protection requirements and the availability of alternative siting options.
These concerns are directly supported by the standards outlined in the Garfield County
Land Use and Development Code (LUDC). Notably:
- LUDC § 4-203(E) requires that:
“Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.”
The current plan does not meet this standard. Mitigation is used in place of true
avoidance, contrary to the Code’s intent.
- LUDC § 4-302(F)(3) states that approval of a PUD requires a finding that:
“The PUD will not have significant adverse effects on the natural environment,
including… wildlife habitat.”
CPW’s comments confirm this standard cannot be met in the project’s current form.
Additional key concerns include:
- Declining elk herd productivity, with notably low calf-to-cow ratios in herd E-16
- Insufficient mitigation funding, with CPW recommending an increase in the real estate
transfer fee from 0.4% to at least 0.75%
- Lack of enforceable seasonal restrictions and wildlife-friendly design standards
- Inadequate incorporation of CPW’s Species Activity Mapping (SAM) data into
development planning and trail routing
As stewards of Garfield County’s natural resources, you have a responsibility—outlined
in LUDC § 4-109(A)—to protect the long-term environmental health of the region
through avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of development impacts. This project, as
currently proposed, does not rise to that standard.
I urge you to:
1. Deny the PUD approval under LUDC § 4-302(F)(3) until the applicant demonstrates
that significant adverse effects on wildlife habitat have been thoroughly addressed.
2. Require a revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan that directly incorporates CPW’s
recommendations.
3. Require relocation of the deed-restricted housing units out of the elk production and
winter concentration areas to reduce pressure on critical habitat.
4. Mandate full consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts using the best
available science and mapping tools.
5. Ensure meaningful, enforceable protections for elk calving and wintering habitat.
6. Require reevaluation of trail placement and recreation planning to align with CPW’s
trail planning guidance and wildlife impact minimization best practices.
7. Increase the real estate transfer fee to better fund mitigation and habitat restoration
efforts.
Thank you for your dedication to thoughtful land use planning and for considering these
concerns in your decision-making process. The long-term health of our wildlife
populations and ecosystems—and the economic and cultural benefits they bring to
Garfield County—depend on it.
Sincerely,
Kara Edewaard
Frying Pan Elk Herd (Unit E-16) in the Spring Valley Ranch meadow – Winter Production
Area
Exhibit A – PUD Elk Impacts
Elk severe
winter range
Ski Hill
Affordable
Housing
Ski Hill
Exhibit A – PUD Mule Deer Impacts
Ski Hill
Affordable
Housing
Ski Hill
From:robinvannorman@gmail.com
To:Philip Berry
Cc:"j. vickroy"
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch Development/Substantial PUD Amendment
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2025 8:04:04 PM
You don't often get email from robinvannorman@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Feb. 22, 2025
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Berry,
We reside in Elk Springs in Garfield County. We are writing to the board of
the Garfield County Commissioners office, with our strong opposition to
the proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in
Glenwood Springs.
We believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects
on our community. Some of concerns are summarized below:
WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would
have a catastrophic effect on the water source that is currently
established. One of the main factors is that we, as a state, have been in a
drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter months to help
with the water levels. There have already been water shortage experiences
during the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this
area but also the livestock and wildlife. The two years that Spring Valley
Ranch was filling up their reservoir the spring I rely on was significantly
affected. Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed
to water quality and quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water
system. Allowing them to utilize large quantities of this precious resource
to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible. Adding the additional 577
housing units, as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire station, and
a South facing skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing,
would significantly affect these precious water sources.
FIRE:
I, Robin am a member of the Elk Springs Fire Mitigation committee. I am
very aware of the alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be
another fire in the area today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on
the roads then this could cause a problem with roads becoming blocked
making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not to mention the first
responders being able to safely access the area. Having these additional
structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it
more difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current
landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 3 accessible
emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area
would affect the residents that currently live in the area, as well as
residents and businesses around the area. The traffic would increase to
become unmanageable, and would not only affect County Road 114 but
County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all of the
different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri
Heights and Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase
would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions and noise. This is just
not something this area can endure. There would be a significant increase
in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many
problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that
traffic would increase to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not
including the construction traffic that will take place for the proposed 10-
12 years.
WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning
to the area for the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have
re-established their migration routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring
Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs, High Aspen Ranch and
surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the high
mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them
out temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that have also
created a home all throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as
well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still live within Spring
Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory
for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact on
wildlife and would make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to
breeding to being hit by traffic. They would be forced to move to another
area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for
the Spring Valley Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the
county as well. This development would not benefit the community or the
county, it would be taking away from local businesses and the small town
mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent with many
sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time.
Robin Van Norman & Jim Vickroy
720 Wood Nymph Ln
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From:Lefort, Denise
To:Glenn Hartmann
Cc:Philip Berry
Subject:Save Spring Valley
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2025 8:44:29 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from dlefort@coloradomtn.edu. Learn why this is
important
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I reside in Garfield County and work at CMC. I am greatly concerned of the negative impact
it will have on the college and roads and traffic to get there. I am writing to the board of the
Garfield County Commissioners office, with my strong opposition to the proposed
development proposal of the Spring Valley Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community.
Water and fire and animals. Please do not ruin this land.
Some of concerns are summarized below:
WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a catastrophic
effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors is that we,
as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter months
to help with the water levels. There have already been water shortage experiences during
the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this area but also the
livestock and wildlife. The two years that Spring Valley Ranch was filling up their reservoir
the spring I rely on was significantly affected.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize large
quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire
station, and a South facing skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would
significantly affect these precious water sources.
FIRE:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the area
today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could cause a
problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not
to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area. Having these
additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it more
difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring
Valley already has only 3 accessible emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would affect the
residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses around the
area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not only affect
County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all of
the different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri Heights and
Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create more dust,
pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not something this area can endure.
There would be a significant increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is
already having many problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that
traffic would increase to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the
construction traffic that will take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area for
the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration
routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs,
High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the
high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them out
temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that have also created a home all
throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jackrabbits.
Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a
part of their territory for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact
on wildlife and would make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding to
being hit by traffic. They would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to
accommodate their needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley
Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development
would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away from local
businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent
with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time,
Denise Lefort
Denise Lefort
Associate Professor Business
Colorado Mountain College
Glenwood Springs Colorado
dlefort@Coloradomtn.edu,
970-510-3308 (O) 864-361-0495 (C)
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Wednesday, February 26, 2025 6:55:32 AM
From: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 8:48 PM
To: patricktullyking@gmail.com
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Patrick
Thank you for your email. I will forward it on to Community Develpment
From: noreply@formstack.com <noreply@formstack.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:09 AM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Opposition to Spring Valley development
Name: Patrick King
Email: patricktullyking@gmail.com
Phone number: (207) 653-9806
Message: Dear Mr. Jankovsky, I live in unincorporated Garfield County between highway 82
and the Spring Valley Ranch. I know the area well and I cannot imagine a development of this
size being put in. I urge you to do whatever you can to oppose the project.
I am especially concerned about the water use and what happens if there's a significant fire up
there. I'm on a well and it's my worst fear that one day I'll have no water for my home. I know
people who are already having problems with their wells, how can we afford a development
that uses 1,000,000 gallons per day in the summer? The Grizzly fire was a warning for us. I
remember texting neighbors about spot fires near our properties. Putting 577 homes in an area
where a big fire is likely is just irresponsible. Imagine the evacuation chaos down Red Canyon
Road.
Lastly, I'm just tired of seeing empty second homes that take up a ton of resources in this
county. My wife and I work hard, we bought a home, and we are raising our daughter here.
Sadly, I see local people, people who grew up here, have to leave because they can't afford to
live here. A luxury development like this only makes that problem bigger. Let's invest in the
people whose families have been here for generations, who want to work in our schools, who
want to raise families here.
I'll be at the April 9th meeting and I hope you oppose this project.
Thank you,
From:Liz Caris
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley
Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 5:18:24 PM
You don't often get email from ecaris@comcast.net. Learn why this is important
Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I reside in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners
office, with my strong opposition to the proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley
Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community.
Some of concerns are summarized below:
WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a catastrophic
effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors is that we,
as a state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter months
to help with the water levels. There have already been water shortage experiences during
the summer months that have affected not only homesteads in this area but also the
livestock and wildlife. The two years that Spring Valley Ranch was filling up their reservoir
the spring I rely on was significantly affected.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and
quantity issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize large
quantities of this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 577 housing units, as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire
station, and a South facing skiing and sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would
significantly affect these precious water sources.
FIRE:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the area
today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could cause a
problem with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not
to mention the first responders being able to safely access the area. Having these
additional structures so close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it more
difficult to control or fight a fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring
Valley already has only 3 accessible emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would affect the
residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses around the
area. The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not only affect
County Road 114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all of the
different road routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri Heights and
Cottonwood Pass towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create more dust,
pollution, wildlife collisions and noise, This is just not something this area can endure.
There would be a significant increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is
already having many problems with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that
traffic would increase to 5,700 trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the
construction traffic that will take place for the proposed 10-12 years.
WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area for
the last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration
routes that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs,
High Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the
high mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them out
temporarily. There are a significant number of deer that have also created a home all
throughout Spring Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jackrabbits.
Mountain lions still live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a
part of their territory for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact
on wildlife and would make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding to
being hit by traffic. They would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to
accommodate their needs to survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley
Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development
would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away from local
businesses and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent
with many sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time,
Bill and Liz Caris
Elk Springs Subdivision
3/20/20
't
.,!
,)i
2b{
, - ;,1's r*-*.-'"* q"i,f;id-bfl
f.'tAR
Garfiel.d County Ptanning and Zoning
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601
Mr. Gten Hartmann
Dear Mt Hartmann
My name is Phitip Maass, I am a 2!-year resident who tives in El.k Springs subdivision. I am writing
to the board of the Garf iel.d County Pl.anning office, with my concerns for the proposed sate and
devetopment proposaI of the Spring Vatl.ey Ranch, Located in Gtenwood Springs.
There are many reasons whythis sal.e/devetopment shoul.d not be atl.owed to be approved. Some
of the main key points of concern are summ arized betow:
WATER- Water levets have been inconsistent since Colorado has been in a drought for over 15
years. Adding the additio nal577 housing units, as wetl as a 200 -acre gotf course, a generaI store,
a fire station, and a possibte skiing and sl.edding hittthatthe devetopers are proposing, woul.d
significantty affect the water sources. We in El.k Springs monitor and controI ourwatervery
carefutty and woutd not want ourwater depteted or degraded due to this subdivision.
FIRE-Therewoutdbeanatarmingnumberof safetyconcernsif thereweretobeanotherfireinthe
area,forresidentstogetoutsafetyaswettasfirstresponderstosafetyaccesstheareas. lfthere
were to be an increase in traffic on the roads (due to construction or daiLy commuting or random
traffic), this could cause a probtem with roads becoming btocked. lam on the E1kSpringfire
mitigation committee and wetaken numerous steps to improve our safetyfrom fires incl.uding
creating severalfire breaks to stow down the spreading of fires and educating homeowners on the
necessity of smaft f ire prevention. we are a nf pa "Firewise community,,.
TRAFFIC- The signif icant amount of traff ic increase that woutd be created in the area woutd affect
many of the residents that currentLy tive in the area, as wetlas residents and businesses around
the area. I have seen the increase in traffic on cty Rd 1 14 since I have Lived here and the
intersection with Hwy82 is a hugetraffic jam especiattyatrush hour. The tayoutof the service
road next to Hwy 82 makes this intersection prone to Large delays,
WILDLIFE- This devetopment wiLt have a major impact on wi[dtife and wou1d make it extremely
diff icutt for the wil.dlife's migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They woutd be forced
to move to another area that wit[ not be abte to accommodate their needs to survive.
Ptease considerthe negative impacts thatthis proposed devetopment forthe springVattey Ranchwoutd have on the neighboring residents and the county as wett. This devetopment wou1d not
benef it the community or the county, it woutd be taking away f rom Local. businesses and thesmalt-town mountain charm we have. lt woul,d atso not be consistent with many sections of the
Garf ietd County 2030 Comprehensive pl.an.
we need to keep our ruraI mountain areas rurat. we need to hetp protect our waters andprotect the [ands that the witdtife needs to survive
V^/ry-=Waa<<
From:Ashley Ruby
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Perry Will; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky
Date:Wednesday, March 26, 2025 6:57:14 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from rubyashley106@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson, Perry Will, Glenn Hartmann, Philip Berry,
I am writing to urge you to deny the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD due to its
significant threats to our community and environment.
This development risks:
Water Resources: Severe strain on our water supply, requiring thorough assessment..
Traffic Congestion: Exacerbated traffic, impacting safety and evacuation capacity.
Wildlife Habitat: Destruction of critical habitats and increased human-animal conflict.
Quality of Life: Diminished rural character and peaceful environment.
Please prioritize our community's long-term interests over short-term development gains.
Do not approve this project.
Keep our valley as is. Leave our mountains and the nature spaces that we have. We like it
as is. We have enough golf courses.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley R. Gonzalez.
Be Kind to all kinds.
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry; Heather MacDonald
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 5:41:35 PM
From: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 4:30 PM
To: KBLiving4Yahusha@yahoo.com
Cc: Glenn Hartmann <GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: RE: Garfield County website inquiry
Kelly
Thank you for your email, I will forward it on to Community Development
From: Communications <Communications@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 5:14 PM
To: Tom Jankovsky <tjankovsky@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch
Name: Kelly Black
Email: KBLiving4Yahusha@yahoo.com
Phone number: (720) 281-3618
Message: Garfield County Administration & Commissioners
108 8th Street, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Garfield County Board of Commissioners,
I reside in Garfield County. I am writing to the board of the Garfield County Commissioners
office, with my strong opposition to the proposed development proposal of the Spring Valley
Ranch, located in Glenwood Springs.
I believe that the proposed development will have detrimental effects on our community,
including but not limited to:
WATER:
Water is one of my great concerns. This proposed development would have a catastrophic
effect on the water source that is currently established. One of the main factors is that we, as a
state, have been in a drought for more than 15 years, with inconsistent winter months to help
with the water levels. There have already been water shortage experiences during the summer
months that have affected not only homesteads in this area but also the livestock and wildlife.
Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quality and quantity
issues for the entire Colorado River water system. Allowing them to utilize large quantities of
this precious resource to irrigate and make snow is irresponsible.
Adding the additional 501 housing units, as well as 2 golf courses, a general store, a fire
station, a South facing ski hill, and a sledding hill that the developers are proposing, would
significantly affect these precious water sources.
FIRE:
There is an alarming number of safety concerns if there were to be another fire in the area
today. If there were to be an increase in traffic on the roads then this could cause a problem
with roads becoming blocked making it difficult for residents to get out safely, not to mention
the first responders being able to safely access the area. Having these additional structures so
close to each other would create more fire fuel and make it more difficult to control or fight a
fire, compared to the current landscaping that is there. Spring Valley already has only 3
accessible emergency routes, without any additional traffic.
TRAFFIC:
The significant amount of traffic increase that would be created in the area would affect the
residents that currently live in the area, as well as residents and businesses around the area.
The traffic would increase to become unmanageable, and would not only affect County Road
114 but County Road 115, County Road 119, County Road 110, and all of the different road
routes that go through Cattle Creek, over towards Missouri Heights and Cottonwood Pass
towards Eagle. The road usage increase would create more dust, pollution, wildlife collisions
and noise, This is just not something this area can endure. There would be a significant
increase in traffic that would also affect Highway 82, which is already having many problems
with the volume of traffic. The developers are indicating that traffic would increase to 5,700
trips a day on County Road 114 alone, not including the construction traffic that will take
place for an estimated 10-16 years.
WILDLIFE:
The wildlife in the area has changed over the years but has been returning to the area for the
last few years, including elk. Multiple herds of elk have re-established their migration routes
that run through Spring Valley, Spring Valley Ranch, Lookout Mountain, Elk Springs, High
Aspen Ranch and surrounding areas. Black bears have also been returning to the high
mountains of the area, even after the Grizzly Creek Fire had pushed them out temporarily.
There are a significant number of deer that have also created a home all throughout Spring
Valley and the surrounding areas, as well as the white-tailed jackrabbits. Mountain lions still
live within Spring Valley, Lookout Mountain, and surrounding areas as a part of their territory
for feeding and breeding. This development will have a major impact on wildlife and would
make it extremely difficult for their migration routes to breeding to being hit by traffic. They
would be forced to move to another area that will not be able to accommodate their needs to
survive.
Please consider the negative impacts that this proposed development for the Spring Valley
Ranch would have on the neighboring residents and the county as well. This development
would not benefit the community or the county, it would be taking away from local businesses
and the small town mountain charm we have. It would also not be consistent with many
sections of the Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
We need to keep our rural mountain areas rural.
Thank you for your time,
Kelly Black
From:Kat Bird
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Perry Will; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky
Subject:NO TO THE SPRING VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
Date:Friday, March 28, 2025 3:58:29 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from birdkat97@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
Dear Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson, Perry Will, Glenn Hartmann, Philip Berry,
Thank you for ALL you do for our community and The Roaring Fork Valley.
I am writing to urge you to deny the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD due to its
significant threats to our community and environment. I am a former Colorado Mountain
College student, and now long time valley local since 2014, I’ve seen so much growth and I
worry that glenwood springs does not have the resources to support a luxury community of
this volume. The valley has already grown beyond what any of us can sustain. We need to
be realistic about our landscape, our environment and future as a community. Do we really
want more vacation homes and people who don’t contribute to the community?
This development risks:
Water Resources: Severe strain on our water supply, requiring thorough assessment..
Traffic Congestion: Exacerbated traffic, impacting safety and evacuation capacity.
Wildlife Habitat: Destruction of critical habitats and increased human-animal conflict.
Quality of Life: Diminished rural character and peaceful environment.
Please prioritize our community's long-term interests over short-term development gains.
Do not approve this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Katherine Bird
From:Barbie
To:Philip Berry
Subject:SVR
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 9:46:27 AM
You don't often get email from barbmax@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Philip Berry,
Thank you for ALL you do for our community and The Roaring Fork Valley.
I am writing to urge you to deny the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD due to its
significant threats to our community and environment.
This development risks:
Water Resources: Severe strain on our water supply, requiring thorough assessment..
Traffic Congestion: Exacerbated traffic, impacting safety and evacuation capacity.
Wildlife Habitat: Destruction of critical habitats and increased human-animal conflict.
Quality of Life: Diminished rural character and peaceful environment.
Please prioritize our community's long-term interests over short-term development gains.
Do not approve this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barbara Maxson
Sent from my iPhone
Gregg Minion MD
119 Monarch Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
913-219-6040
gminion@gmail.com
Esteemed Members of the County Commission, Planning Commission, Community
Development Department and County Staff, thank-you for your time, energy, and the
effort that you have put into evaluating the Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) PUD Amendment
Substantial Modification.
During the process of collecting over 1,000 signatures against the SVR, I personally
spoke with two hundred local residents. Only a handful expressed support for the
development. Their singular concern relates to the rights of private landowners. The
other individuals all voiced their concern and opposition.
I would like to share some of the concerns related to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD.
Comprehensive Plan/LUDC: This is a partial list of issues that do not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan 2030: eliminating Sprawl, limiting growth, protecting historic lands,
supporting new and existing agriculture and impacting our rural appeal and character.
The PUD also does not comply with multiple Garfield County Land Use Development
codes. (LUDC). For example, there is a lack of demonstrated need for the proposed
facilities, services or housing. The current homesites and agricultural operations have
not changed to such a degree as to support the proposed commercial operations nor
this type of residences. (4-113.C) Outside of walking / biking trails, and access to a
convenience store, use will be limited to homeowners on this private development.
What was once open space will become an unnecessary development made up of 85%
expensive 2nd homes when what is needed locally is more affordable housing. For the
above reasons and many others, the proposal is not in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan 2030. Primarily, it conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s Vision:
“Garfield County is dedicated to …, protecting wildlife, maintaining or improving the
quality of our natural environment and preserving the county’s rural and western
heritage.” The Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) PUD brings little needed change to Spring
Valley, Garfield County or the region. Residents that are in opposition are not antigrowth
or anti-development, rather in support of responsible growth and development.
Business Concerns: What data do we have on the quality and quantity of jobs that
purportedly will be created? Are these high quality, high paying and long standing
jobs? What will the Spring Valley Ranch PUD do to regional competition for skilled and
unskilled labor? Will this drive up the cost of labor? What will this do to travel times on
Hwy 82? Per the Comprehensive Plan the development should not create competition
between new and viable existing businesses such as exist at Thunder River. A Job
Generation report might be useful in addressing some of these concerns. This
development will have a negative impact on existing businesses via direct competition.
Affordable Housing: There is an inadequate number of affordable dwelling units planned
for the number of jobs created. The Spring Valley Ranch PUD plan includes 77
affordable dwelling units. The PUD submittal estimates adding roughly 200 jobs. This
discrepancy will increase the housing deficit in an area that is already starved for
reasonable priced housing. This will add to travel times, pollution and worsen quality of
life.
Roads: Will the roads, especially County road 114/CMC Road, be able to
accommodate the projected 3300 to 5700 trips per day not including construction
traffic? Will CR 114 be safe for pedestrian CMC students in light of the fact that there is
no public transportation planned. For that matter, will the roads (CR 113,110,115) be
safe for walkers and bicyclists in general? This begs the question, can these steep two
lane, winding roads, which are icy in winter, ever safely handle the traffic to which they
will be exposed. Another Traffic Information Study that better evaluates the impact to
CR115 and CR110 roads needs to be completed. Can the roads be constructed so that
they have adequate access and capacity as required by the LUDC (Article 7-107 ) ,
especially in the case of emergency evacuation. As outlined in the Phasing plan, there
will be overlap of the road improvements and housing construction. This will negatively
impact the travel time and enjoyment of living in Spring Valley for at least a decade.
The improvements mentioned in the Phasing Plan need to be expressly characterized
prior to the SVR PUD being approved.
Fire: A major concern is fire evacuation. How long will it take to evacuate the area if
there is a wildfire? One estimate is greater than 11 hours. There is a suggestion that
sheltering in place would be appropriate. Unfortunately this may not be acceptable to
the residents, workers and visitors. This could lead to Fire, EMS, residents, workers
and visitors all accessing roads that are limited in access and capacity. This is a real
concern inlight of the multiple wildfires we have experienced: Coal Seam, Storm King,
Lake Christine, Grizzly Creek etc) Over the last few years Spring Valley homeowners
have had issues with obtaining homeowners insurance secondary to fire risk. One can
assume that this trend will continue as it has in the rest of the country.
Water: Whether the planned water use is sustainable is unknown. Current residents of
Spring Valley have significant concerns related to this issue. Without proof of adequate,
reliable, physical long-term and a legal water supply (7-104) to irrigate the private golf
courses, ski hills, landscape and open space it must be assumed that it does not exist.
In the face of aridification, with water resources that are already over allocated, these
questions require an accurate answer prior to moving forward with this project. The
application of 1,000,000 plus gallons of water per day can only be characterized as
misuse. It is everyone's responsibility to protect and preserve this precious resource.
What would the Spring Valley Ranch have the other individuals, both wildlife and people
do, if the water in the area becomes inadequate to accommodate the needs of all?
Groundwater pollution from the homes and golf courses are a legitimate concern that
needs to be addressed. We should all be alarmed by the use of this quantity of surface
and groundwater. Further characterization of the aquifer must be completed prior to
approval.
Wildlife: Wildlife will suffer. Where elk and deer once roamed freely they will now be
impeded. The build will further stress the Frying Pan Elk herd that per CPW already
shows signs of decline caused by habitat fragmentation, interruption of migration
corridors, an impact to summer and winter range and a change in access to surface
water. Houses, roads, people, trails, dogs, golf and skiing will continue to negatively
impact an already disturbing trend in a decrease in the calving/production of this
foundation species. This trend will have an impact on the existence and economic value
of the Frying Pan Elk Herd. Concerns about wildlife-people interactions must be
considered in light of the bear and mountain lion in the area. An increase in vehicle
animal strikes will be an additional consequence.
Economic Impact: How will this development impact home valuations and property
taxes in the surrounding area? Who will cover costs to revegetate the land if this is a
failed community? What costs will be incurred by the County to support ongoing
infrastructure needs secondary to the SVR? At the rate we are building there will be little
undeveloped land left in Spring Valley and this part of Garfield County.
The citizens of Garfield County do not want, nor need a private life-style community that
is incompatible with the region's rural landscape and agricultural heritage. This is
basically a request to build a development similar in size to the combined land mass of
Carbondale and Glenwood combined, 5 miles up a steep, winding, 2 lane road. Any
harm to the environment, once done, will not be easily undone.
Just because we have the ability to bring a concept to fruition does not mean we are
required to. We ought to promote and protect the 5900 acres from unnecessary
development. This area should remain wild and biodiverse.
Now that we are aware of the negative impacts of the development of Spring Valley
Ranch, we should act accordingly as it relates to the consumption of a massive amount
of water, impact of fire, wildlife, traffic, road safety, water quality and compatibility with
the surrounding area to name a few issues. The changes requested in the PUD
application do not warrant placing Spring Valley hostage for another 20 plus years in
light of the high risk and low reward that the area is being asked to accept. What was
once a novel idea, no longer has a place in this area. Outside of housing, the
development is incompatible with surrounding land uses.
For many reasons, some of which are outlined above, this is an inappropriate
development in an inappropriate location. Do we even have data that supports the
need for the 500 multimillion dollar home? (Marketing Survey)
It is my belief that this development will negatively impact the quality of life for all
residents of the surrounding region, not just Spring Valley. As it is planned, Spring
Valley Ranch brings no new or unique amenities to our community. As such this is not a
development which will add to our lives. If anything, the Spring Valley Ranch will detract
from our enjoyment.
I respectfully request denial of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Amendment.
Sincerely,
Gregg Minion MD
Objection to Storied Development's proposed glutlnous use of finite water resources in
the Spring Valley Aquifer for developing Spring Valley Ranch
Dear Planning and Zoning Staff and Commissioners,
I am not a dedicated NIMBY nor am I anti-development. ln fact, I was the primary land
planner and project manager for the Elk Springs development. I am however opposed to mind-
less development that is knowingly wasteful of our increasingly most valuable and limited
natural resource - water. The likely proposed mining of the Spring Valley Aquifer to nurture golf
courses above 7000 feet in elevation is irresponsible to the environment and all other water
users in Spring Valley which includes the CMC Spring Valley Campus. Storied Development's
dismissive response to neighbor's genuine concerns of mining the aquifer is consistent with a
development that has no desire to fit in with the rural setting of Spring Valley, respect its
existing residents, or serve the interests of Garfield County.
Storied's own water analysis notes the Spring Valley Aquifer is not a unified basin, but
rather a collection of elevated and lower aquifers. No study has been conducted to analyze the
rate by which water passes from the elevated aquifers to the lower basin or the extent to
whether it even does so. Storied claims an incredible 600 acre-feet of water flows down Landis
Creek but presents no historical or recent proof of this claim. They dissemble by saying this
massive flow will provide most of their irrigation needs but then refuse to limit irrigation from
wells. And finally, and most importantly, if the aridification trend of the past 20 years continues,
Storied's glutinous use of water for golf courses will most definitely mine and deplete the
aquifer - even by their own generous calculations of the infiltration rate of precipitation.
I do not term their proposed water use glutinous without good reason. The Elk Springs
PUD has consumptive water rights of approximately 70 acre-feet to serve approximately 420
EQRs (one sixth of an acre-foot per EOR). Storied Development wants to consume 974.5 acre-
feet of water to serve 695 EQRs (one and four tenths acre-feet per EQR). This is consumptive
use of water per EQR at a rate eight times greater than Elk Springs PUD. This glutinous
consumption of water in a closed basin with no external water sources is wasteful,
nonsensical and should not be condoned.
Very Truly Concerned Citizen
2 6G C)
Greg S Boecker
March 31,2A25
Re: Hearing of the SpringVattey Ranch Substantiat PUD Amendment, April g
Dear Garfietd County Commissioners,
My first visit to Spring Vattey was in 1987 and I was struck by the beauty of the open [and,
the sprawting ranches, the peaceful grazingcattte and the herds of mute deer and etk. One
summer morning lwas fortunate to see a magnificent mountain lion sunning himsetf on a
rock in the front yard. The rural environment of GarfieLd Countywas stunning in its
simpticity, particutarty against the backdrop of the commanding vista of Mt. Sopris.
I own several tots in Etk Springs as wetl as owning El,k Mesa which shares a property tine
with Etk Springs to the north. I have a vested interest in the overal,t heatth of the surrounding
vatley. Storied Devetopment's ptans for the Spring Vattey Ranch devetopment appears to fty
in the face of the rurat surrounding area. The Storied proposal runs counter with adjacent
land uses in terms of water use, devetopment amenities, CR 1 14, wiLdfire evacuation
needs, witdtife corridors etc,
I am not anti-devetopment. I am a real estate devetoper who is aware of the fragitity of
Spring Val.Ley. Currently, County Road 1 14 is stretched to the breaking point and the thought
of 577 additionaL famities trying to ftee a fire on an inadequatel.y sized road is dangerous to
the extent of being criminat. The drought is here to stay, and water must be viewed as a
diminishing resource that shoutd be treasured. Storied acts as though the aquafer is
bottomtess and gotf courses, bountiful surface irrigation and a ski hitt make sense. The arid
climate of Spring Vattey is comptetety inappropriate for the "water hogging" proposat of
Storied. A responsibte developer shou[d consider the timitations of the fragite water suppty
in a fire prone area.
There are manyissues of concern with Storied's devetopment. I am not a scientist or
engineer. The commission witt be hearing from the experts on those retevant topics. Tetl.
Storied to go back to the drawing board and create a pLan that can be supported by the
peopte who tive in the Roaring Fork Vattey and those who appreciate the rural atmosphere
of Spring Vattey.
Respectfutty and with grave concern,
&.,ltc'\,6, l\"^1
Barbara Nea[
Brian Lorch
347 Wood Nymph Ln.
Glenwood Springs CO, 81601
970-485-9232
Blorch11@gmail.com
Submitted via email to
Glenn Hartmann and Phillip Berry
March 31, 2025
Dear esteemed Garfield County Commissioners, Planning Commissioners and Community Development Staff,
Thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns regarding the pending proposal to amend the Spring Valley Ranch
PUD, and thank you for your on-going efforts to guide development in Garfield County,
INTRODUCTION
My name is: Brian Lorch and I live at: 347 Wood Nymph, within a direct line of sight of the Spring Valley Ranch. I have
a Master ’s degree in Watershed Sciences from CSU and I worked for the Community Development Department in
Summit County, CO for over 22 years: First as an Environmental Planner, and then I led the Open Space and Trails
Department for almost 20 years. I reviewed countless development requests for code compliance during my tenure there.
Based on my review of Georgia-based Storied Development’s (Proponent) proposed Major Amendment to the Spring
Valley Ranch (SVR) Planned Unit Development (PUD), I believe that the PUD must be denied because private resort
scheme proposed for the Spring Valley Ranch fails to meet numerous provisions of the Garfield County Land Use
Development Code (LUDC), any one of which justifies denial. It also defies the Vision and numerous policies in the
Comprehensive Plan, is incompatible with the rural character of surrounding land uses, and will cause irreversible adverse
impacts to the natural environment and the community.
PLEASE DON’T FALL FOR THE “BAIT AND SWITCH” PUD AMENDMENT
This development proposal is not Conservation Clustering. The submitted PUD Plan seeks to maximize profits by
dispersing small groups of lots all over the property, specifically to be near future ski and golf facilities, and is an attempt
to create a massive new loophole in the development code. This proposal would fragment any natural resource values of
the proposed Open Space and could set precedent that the community will never recover from.
The Bait: According to the SVR PUD Guide (2024), the Proponent has offered to identify a minimum of 55% of the
property as Open Space to gain the advantages of Conservation Clustering. However, the clusters of homes are proposed
to be spread across the landscape to all corners of the property, and into the most ecologically sensitive areas of the
property.
The Switch: The Proponent’s planned uses of the Open Space ignore the Garfield County regulations, policies, and
standards (LUDC Sections 7-501B1 through 7-501B8)
The Land Use Schedule proposed in the PUD Guide would entitle the Proponent to construct golf courses, driving ranges,
shooting ranges, tennis courts, ball fields, ski hills, chairlifts, and snowmaking facilities, eating and drinking
establishments, and parking lots within PUD areas designated as Open Space. These proposed Open Space uses are
clearly not “designed to protect and not detract from existing wildlife habitat and natural features of the land such as Steep
slopes, Riparian areas, …” (Section 7-501B3).
But there is more: the Proponent is proposing the ability to construct accessory gravel operations, batch plants, water
impoundments, water tanks, reservoirs, water treatment and distribution facilities, power transmission and distribution
lines, solar energy systems, telecommunication facilities, utility distribution facilities, and commercial or support
structures within the Open Space. This list of uses and activities is completely inconsistent with protection of Wildlife,
their habitat, and the resource values of the Open Space. The County’s definition of Open Space allows outdoor
recreation. However, using the Proponent’s reckoning, the back of my car would likely be considered Open Space,
because that is where I throw my outdoor recreation junk.
And to put the nail in the coffin for the Open Space proposed at SVR: The Proponent also slipped in language to allow
any of these facilities and parking lots on the Open Space to be lighted for use after dark, permanently shewing away
wildlife and destroying the cherished dark-sky character of this rural area.
In over 20 years of working to acquire and preserve Open Space, I have never heard any friend or foe of Open Space
suggest allowing such a list of incongruous uses. This list defies any rational interpretation of the concept of Open Space
promulgated in the Garfield County LUDC and Comprehensive Plan. Falling victim to this sham would certainly
obliterate the rural character of the Spring Valley area, and more importantly it could set precedent that will alter land uses
in the entirety of Garfield County in the future.
THE MAJOR PUD AMENDMENT MUST STAND ON ITS OWN
The Proponent repeatedly touts comparisons with the existing PUD as rational for approving their private development
scheme, suggesting that private recreation facilities have already been approved. However, the PUD amendment would
replace any past approvals, and the proposed Amendment must stand on its own based upon current policies and
regulations. There is also a strong argument to assert that past entitlements have expired.
The proposal includes dozens of violations and conflicts with the LUDC and Comprehensive Plan, any one of which is
sufficient grounds for denial of this amendment.
• The Garfield Development code does not include developed downhill ski areas as allowed recreational
activities in the rural landscape, and this change in land use would require a code revision.
• The PUD Resort Scheme Conflicts with the LUDC Sections 7-102, 7-103, 7-106, 7-107, 7-202, 7-207, 7-208,
7-301, 7-304, 7-501B1, 7-501B2, 7-501B3, 7-501B4, 7-501B8, and 7-600:
The State of Colorado referrals highlight some of these concerns.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Referral: “we cannot agree that the wildlife impacts associated with developing the Spring
Valley Ranch would be addressed were this plan to be implemented. “(9/2/2024). This referral highlights critical conflicts
with numerous LUDC and Comp. Plan regulations and policies.
Colorado Geologic Survey Referral: CGS “strongly recommends” that the county require a revised geologic hazards
evaluation (2/23/2024). This indicates conflicts with Section 7-207F3 and others.
Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) Referral: “the developer does not currently have specific water rights for
snowmaking.” (9/12/2024 and pers. comm.3/26/2025). This identifies conflicts with LUCD Section 7-104: “All
applications for Land Use Change shall have an adequate, reliable, physical, long-term and legal water supply to serve the
use…,” and other policies.
The PUD Resort Scheme conflicts with the Garfield Comp. Plan Vision and Policies in Sections 7-P2, 7-P3, 7-P5, 7-
P6, 8-P1, 8-P2, and 8-P3:
The proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s Vision: “Garfield County is dedicated to …, protecting wildlife,
maintaining or improving the quality of our natural environment and preserving the county’s rural and western heritage.”
The Proposal also conflicts with numerous Comp. Plan policies regarding water, natural resources, habitat and wildlife.
This scattered private resort development plan conflicts with Open Space requirements and policies the LUDC and
Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to:
• Section 7-501 B1: The Open Space shall be designed as large contiguous tracts where small “islands” of Open
Space are discouraged.”
• Section 7-501 B2: The Open Space shall be designed to connect to available existing Open Space on neighboring
properties or tracts of public lands in order to create larger regional tracts of contiguous Open Space.
• Section 7-501 B3: The Open Space shall be designed to protect and not detract from existing wildlife habitat and
natural feature of the land such as stee slopes and riparian areas.
• Section 7-501 B8: The Open Space shall not be reserved for any other type of use.
This unacceptable plan for the lot layout will have critical environmental and community impacts and must be denied.
SVR IS NOT A VIABLE, APPROPRIATE, OR SUSTAINABLE LOCATION FOR THIS RESORT SCHEME
“No Snow Ski Hill: February, 2025 Deer Valley Development: February, 2025
The picture on the left shows the location of the proposed ski resort and the surrounding area proposed for development.
This scenic hillside provides a cherished backdrop that is visible from much of the Roaring Fork Valley. The fact that this
picture shows almost no snow in February indicates why this hillside is so critical for wildlife habitat in the winter.
The picture on the right shows the impact of less than a dozen homes and their access roads on a similar slope at Deer
Valley, Utah. The ecological impacts shown at Deer Valley, would be multiplied 10-fold in the proposed PUD amendment
which would spread almost 100 homes up to, and above the ridgeline, lighting up Spring Valley and much of the Roaring
Fork Valley. All of the additional outdoor facilities proposed for construction as part of the resort scheme will guarantee
that the scattered land between the lots will not retain Open Space or habitat values.
THE NATURE, SCALE, LOCATION, AND INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED USES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH
THE RURAL CHARACTER, ADJACENT LAND USE OR ALLOWED USES OF OPEN SPACE.
Photos of Tasker Club by Storied Development: near Park City, Utah
The Proponent’s promotional materials showing their “private lifestyle resort” concept make it clear that the proposal is
fundamentally incompatible with the rural character of the surrounding land uses in Spring Valley.
THE PRIVATE SKI RESORT SCHEME IS DOOMED TO FAIL AT THE PERIL OF COMMUNTY CHARACTER.
Spring Valley Ranch, February 26, 2025 Sunlight Ski Area, February 26, 2025
The two pictures above were taken at the same location and time in February of 2025, and
contrast SVR with nearby Sunlight Ski area. Please note that Sunlight is white and is
predominantly treed because the northerly slope aspects hold snow, whereas the south
facing SVR does not. While Colorado residents may observe this difference between
south and north facing hills daily, the Georgia Proponent may understandably be less
familiar with this phenomenon.
According to Coloradoskihistory.com over 145 ski areas have gone defunct since the turn
of the 20th century, primarily due to the lack of a skiable snowpack, and only about 30
remain.
To illustrate this difference, the graph below compares the solar radiation on south-southwest (SSW) facing slopes, like
Spring Valley Ranch, to a north-northeast (NNE) facing slope, like the nearby Sunlight Resort.
Ski Areas Unable to Open: Business News
This graph indicates that the proposed ski hill at SVR would receive approximately three times more solar radiation on
January 1 than Sunlight Ski Area. This makes it unlikely that there will be enough snow accumulation to make even the
easiest ski hills viable, and steeper slopes have an even greater differential in solar gain between north and south facing
slopes in winter.
To artificially increase the value of SVR lots, the PUD amendment proposes to thwart nature with a tenuous scheme to
produce manmade snow. The frivolous and unsustainable nature of this water and power demand is highlighted by
viewing the horizontal timeline on the above graph. The daily solar energy input melting snow on a SSW facing hill near
Glenwood Springs during early January is even greater than a NNE facing hill receives in mid-April. Therefore, even
continual snowmaking efforts throughout the season will probably accumulate insufficient snow for reliable skiing given
the location, elevation, slopes and aspects of SVR.
Although the PUD proposal does not specify the size and extent of the proposed ski area, it is clear this effort will require
extensive infrastructure on the Open Space. Sunlight Resort makes snow on about 4% of its area and the Aspen Ski Areas
have the capacity to cover about 16% of their ski hills. The intense solar radiation and lower elevation of SVR will require
snowmaking on the majority of the proposed ski area.
The project designer projected that the snowmaking demand would require a snowmaking capacity of about 500,000
gallons per day for 3 months. In contrast, 500,000 gallons is roughly the total amount of snowmaking water used at
Sunlight Ski Resort in a full year, according to the Aspen Times. Therefore, the proposed ski area represents an
unsustainable waste of precious water and resources and is doomed to fail. The proposed metro district and the
community will be left with denuded and altered slopes and access roads, chairlifts, dispersed snowmaking and lift
facilities, and associated ski resort “junk” spread across the Open Space when the futility of skiing on this site becomes
apparent.
These snowmaking guns and snow cats moving snow all night are incompatible with the rural character of Spring Valley.
The Colorado Division of Resources has also stated that the Proponent does not have the legal water rights to make snow
in winter. Instead of providing data to “prove” the existence of physical or “wet” water to run the proposed snowmaking
system, the Proponent’s water reports do not disclose or evaluate this use.
According to one manufacturer’s website, each snowmaking gun can
rival the noise of a chainsaw. The projected water use indicates that
dozens of guns will be running simultaneously all night long for months
compounding the noise impacting neighbors and displacing wildlife.
Lighting on each of the proposed homesites and at all the facilities
proposed to be located on this prominent hillside and ridge will
permanently diminish the night sky character of this area and degrade
the Open Space in conflict with the LUDC. Downcast lighting will not
mitigate the change in community character or the wildlife impacts to
the fractured Open Space because it will overhang so much rural
landscape that is generally devoid of trees.
As stated earlier, the Garfield Development Code does not allow this private developed downhill ski area in the rural
landscape, and this change in land use would require a code revision. The private ski resort is incompatible with the rural
character and this proposed change in land use must be denied.
WATER, WATER, … BUT FROM WHERE?
The sculpture in the Grand Junction Veterans Memorial Park boldly proclaims, “In The West, When You Touch Water,
You Touch Everything,”-Wayne N. Aspinall. The Garfield County Commissioners have wisely embraced and articulated
this concern in Section of 7-104 of the LUDC and the Comprehensive Plan.
The April 2024 water report by Colorado Water Engineering, submitted by the Proponent, is an in-office review of a paper
exercise completed by Gamba Engineering in 1990, and employs the same methods and assumptions with some updates
to weather and precipitation records to reflect warmer and dryer climate conditions since 1990. The County
commissioned a review of this report by Matrix Engineering that identified serious concerns with the assumptions and
lack of data in the Proponent’s water reports. The SGM Engineering Comments and Concerns for Spring Valley Ranch
Amendment (September 2024) commissioned by the potentially impacted well users in the aquifer concludes:
“SGM’s analysis of the SVR development’s water supply availability reveals significant concerns regarding aquifer
sustainability recharge rates, groundwater storage volume and demand calculations. The Aquifer Sustainability Report’s
assumptions about aquifer storage, recharge and water balance lack sufficient justification and fail to account for critical
factors such as prolonged dry periods and inter-aquifer dynamics. There is a serious risk of aquifer mining due to
overestimated recharge rates and proposed high water use. To ensure sustainable water management, SVR should provide
more comprehensive analysis, validate its assumptions and limit its high-water -use activities.”
Instead of characterizing the availability of water with pumping or groundwater data, the SVR water reports are based on
simplistic assumptions, such as; all water that infiltrates into the ground in the entire Spring Valley basin enters the
aquifer, stays in the aquifer, moves toward the SVR wells, and will remain available for the Proponent to pump. The
reports include no indication of how the Proponent will address injury to other well users from SVR well drawing down
and drying up wells during seasonal or extended dry periods.
As stated previously, these water reports also make no mention of winter snowmaking use, listing outdoor water use as
zero from November through March. It would be irrational to assert that the Proponent has proven that they have “an
adequate, reliable, physical, long-term and legal water supply” for all of the proposed uses in the PUD, or that they have
proven that their proposed demand to squeeze almost one million gallons of water per day out of the aquifer will not
drastically injure the community.
The residents surrounding Spring Valley implore the Community Development Department to save public dollars and
avoid on-going stress to the community by not considering any future Spring Vallley Ranch PUD amendment submittals
complete until any applicant has provided sufficient long-term well data and groundwater modeling to meet its burden to
prove that it has sustainable legal and physical water for all of the proposed water uses, and that these uses will not harm
existing water users, the community, or the environment. This burden should not be borne by Garfield County
Government or the community.
THE COMMUNITY MUST NOT “FOOT THE BILL” FOR THIS PRIVATE RESORT SCHEME
The community must not be forced to foot the bill for all of the adverse environmental and social impacts associated with
the proposed private resort:
• Aquifer drawdown from the frivolous and unsustainable waste of water must not dry up wells, causing economic
hardship and catastrophic loss of economic and natural resource values of neighboring lands, as well as the lands
within SVR.
• Undisclosed power demand for snowmaking and private resort facilities will require additional transmission lines
and power infrastructure.
• Recreation facilities must not degrade the ecological and wildlife values of designated Open Space.
• Noise and light pollution must not obliterate the quiet nature and dark night sky of this rural area.
• The proposed Private Resort is fundamentally incompatible with the character of the surrounding land uses.
• The adverse community impacts of this proposal will not be addressed by removing the ski area, golf course,
and/or other elements of the private resort scheme as a condition of PUD approval, because these facilities direct
and define the entire development pattern of the PUD amendment.
The list of issues that should lead to denial of this proposal far exceeds the limits that I can provide in this letter and
includes:
o Loss of wildlife and biodiversity
o Traffic, Safety and infrastructure concerns
o Pollution of air, surface water, groundwater, and soils
o Sprawling Residential and Commercial Development
o Dispersed physical and visual impacts of dispersed ski and golf facilities
o Potential for erosion and landslides
o Light and Noise Pollution
o Excessive and unsustainable use of water, power, and resources
o Visual and physical impacts of infrastructure expansion and new facilities
o Flawed economic analysis overstates benefits while not disclosing full public costs
o Loss of rural character and agricultural Heritage
o And the list goes on….
CONCLUSION
Approving the proposed Open Space “Bait and Switch” by allowing a Proponent to identify portions of a PUD as Open
Space, then ignore the county standards for Opens Space, will create loopholes in the development code that any future
developers could drive their bulldozers through. The extent and distribution of the proposed land disturbance in this PUD
amendment proposal is clearly driven by the goal to construct private ski hills and private resort facilities. Therefore, it is
not sufficient to remove the golf course, commercial area, and/or ski area as a condition of approval.
The County’s water study and other studies have highlighted the prospect for economic catastrophe for all existing well
users, as well as the agricultural heritage of Spring Valley, when this proposal dries up surrounding wells and surface
water. The livelihood and well-being of most of the area residents must not be put at risk pandering to the unsustainable
desires of a select few.
It is essential to consider the sum of all the proposed resort facilities, along with the lot development plan, and their
unmitigated cumulative impacts to the environment, the community, and the rural character.
I respectfully request the denial of the proposed Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment due to conflicts with the
LUDC and the Comprehensive Plan, and based on the sum of all of the unresolved environmental and social issues
raised by the community and outlined in this letter. Please send this proposal back to the drawing board.
Thank you again for your consideration of the issues provided in this letter and for your ongoing service to our
community.
Respectfully submitted
Brian Lorch
Brian Lorch
From:Communications
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Garfield County website inquiry - Senior Planner
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 12:47:43 PM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Name: CLAYTON SMITH
Email: csmith@rvsginc.com
Phone Number: 19703793080
Message: Dear Philip,
Please accept this letter as my comments regarding the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
application that is currently under review. My family has lived here in the Valley for
three generations, my children being the 4th generation, and I am writing to you today
with a factual concern about the proposed development on the Spring Valley Ranch.
My family and I live in Spring Valley immediately below the proposed development.
This massive project, funded by a powerful hedge fund and aimed at creating a
“luxury lifestyle” community for the ultra-wealthy, threatens to destroy this part of the
community, and everything that makes our rural home special. While the developer
may see this as an opportunity for profit, I see it as a devastating blow to the
community, the environment, and the very essence of what this place has always
been about.
Please note previous developers have misled the public. In 2007, a representative for
the project stated, “We really intend to go forward with a project at Spring Valley
Ranch. We’re in the development business... This is not a paper subdivision that
we’re trying to float here and flip to somebody else.” This statement (published by the
Post Independent) which was made to reassure the public, was proven false when
the previous development was ultimately approved by a narrow margin, by previous
BOCC, based on those very promises. Since then, our valley, rivers, watersheds, and
traffic infrastructure have drastically changed, problems that were ignored back then
are now far worse.
A Community at Risk
The scale of this development is incomprehensible. A sprawling luxury complex,
including two private golf courses, a ski resort, an athletic club, and other commercial
spaces, will not only cater to a select few but will entirely bypass the needs of the
people who have called this area home for generations. What is the point of economic
growth when it benefits 2nd homeowners and leaves those of us who have
maintained the very fabric of this rural community? Private golf courses, athletic
facilities, and ski areas won’t benefit this community, ITS PRIVATE.
More alarming is the impending destruction of our water supply. Our wells are already
stretched thin, this development will undoubtedly consume the resources we rely on
for our daily lives—water that is essential for our homes, our farms, and our
livelihoods. Several of my neighbors already must haul their domestic water when
their wells start to dry up during the driest months some years. Families will no longer
be able to survive here. How can we stand by and watch as this development puts
our future at risk, all for the benefit of a few?
Further Loss or Displacement of Roaring Fork Families
Local roads, already struggling to handle current traffic, will be overwhelmed by
thousands of additional vehicles each day. The closure of Red Canyon Road will
sever access for families who depend on it as their main route, leaving parents of this
community unable to get their children to school or to work without a VERY significant
increase in travel time. Daily commutes becoming a never-ending struggle for
residents will force families to vacate Spring Valley, and potentially the Roaring Fork
area for good. Some of The Spring Valley community will be left with no choice but to
sell, forced out by the overwhelming pressures of inadequate infrastructure and water
shortages. Benefiting a hedge fund from Georgia, and a select group of ultra wealthy
that will not be a full-time part of the community.
A Loss of Nature's Beauty
The environmental toll—an irreversible loss that cannot be measured in dollars or
economic growth. Wildlife that calls this area home will be displaced, forced into
decreased grazing spaces, and unsustainable regions, leaving entire herds at risk. It
is my understanding that CPW already considers the elk herd in this area at great
risk. The seasonal lake that forms from snow runoff in the lower end of the valley,
where our wildlife has found peace and solace for generations, will be lost forever to a
private golf course.
Growth should not come at the cost of losing access, water, and Wildlife. This
development impacts our water and road ways we NEED. I implore you to see
beyond the numbers and the possible promises of increased tax revenues. Please
consider the very real, lasting damage this development will inflict on us, the people
who live here, and the environment.
This simply comes down to losing 4 NEEDED living components: Water, Access,
Habitat, and our Community.
Please, do not let this project go forward. We are not opposed to growth, but we must
ask for growth that is thoughtful, respectful, and sustainable—growth located in an
appropriate place and that benefits everyone, not just the privileged few.
Thank you for your time and for considering the impact this development will have on
our community. I trust you will make the right choice and recommend full denial of the
development.
Clayton Smith
From:Andrea Beiswanger
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley PUD
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 2:38:10 PM
You don't often get email from andrea.beisy@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Dear Philip Berry,
Thank you for ALL you do for our community and The Roaring Fork Valley.
I am writing to urge you to deny the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD due to its
significant threats to our community and environment.
This development risks:
Water Resources: Severe strain on our water supply, requiring thorough assessment. I live
in Pinyon Mesa and we already have a HUGE water problem. Our water is supplied by Elk
Springs and they have increased our water rates by 5 fold the last year. As a neighborhood
we are taking great steps trying to decrease water usage and conserve. I am terrified of all
the wells drying up in the future and our entire development needing to ship water to our
homes just so we can have water to drink. Spring Valley would be a complete detriment to
our environment and water supply! Wasting more precious water just so a few more
wealthy people can have their own golf course, swimming pool and ski hill!
Traffic Congestion: Exacerbated traffic, impacting safety and evacuation capacity. If you've
ever driven by Thunder river market during rush hour you know it's a death trap. I have
seen so many near misses every day. There are 6 entrances in a tiny area. Already, there
are so many aggressive drivers just trying to make it through the light. Not to mention all of
the pedestrians trying to walk across 82 to get on the bus. That entire area needs to be
changed and made safer for pedestrians and vehicles. Adding up to 5,000 more vehicles a
day will just cause more accidents and more deaths.
Wildlife Habitat: Destruction of critical habitats and increased human-animal conflict.
Quality of Life: Diminished rural character and peaceful environment.
Please prioritize our community's long-term interests over short-term development gains.
Do not approve this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Beiswanger
From:Brooke Winschell
To:Philip Berry
Cc:Glenn Hartmann
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 4:37:27 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Here is another Spring Valley response.
Thanks,
Brooke A. Winschell
Community Development Administrative Specialist
Community Development Department
bwinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov
Direct 970-945-1377 Ext. 4212
T: 970-945-8212 | F: 970-384-3470
108 8th St, Suite 401 | Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
From: Communications <Communications@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 4:08 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>; Brooke Winschell
<BWinschell@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry - Community Development
Subject: Spring Valley Development
Name: Lisa Sansom
Email: lisesansom@aol.com
Phone Number: 19709480466
Message: Lisa and Paul Sansom
1613 Cattle Creek Road, Carbondale CO 81623
March 31, 2025
Garfield County Commissioners and
Garfield County Planning Commission
108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs , CO 81601
Dear Commissioners and Planners,
We have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 47 years, 38 of those as homeowners in
Cattle Creek (113 Road.) We are writing to express our concern about the proposed
development in Spring Valley by Storied Development.
Since September 2009 when our well went dry, we have had to haul all of our water.
This was after new construction at CMC and housing developments in the area were
completed. Many other property owners in the valley have also had to start having
their water trucked in. We understand that this new project intends to use a million
gallons per day. We are concerned about where this water will come from and how
that will further drain the aquifer and affect other residences’ wells. The porous nature
of the gypsum/limestone in this area should be taken under consideration, as water
sources can easily drop under ground and disappear.
After the use of a million gallons per day, what is the plan for water treatment and it’s
return to the environment? With the construction of a low altitude south facing ski
area, unfathomable amounts of water will be needed to make snow. If this is even
possible, where will the spring run off from this go? Red Canyon cannot handle that
amount of water without flooding and environmental damage.
Many years of drought and several nearby wildfires (Panorama, Grizzly Creek, Fisher
Creek and Basalt Mountain, all within a 10 mile radius to Spring Valley) have caused
us to be extra fire conscious. It seems the lack of egress and the pressure of so much
development will have a disastrous outcome to new and current residents. The
county roads in this area could not handle evacuation traffic.
We have so many additional concerns, but the last one we’d like to mention is the
displacement of wildlife. Even with the dispersed smaller development in the area, we
have seen a huge rise in the numbers of species traveling through our area to access
water and grazing . A huge development will drive the animals off the hillsides down
to the valley floor with Highway 82 as an obstacle to their crucial remaining habitat.
Please keep these concerns in mind when determining if the Storied Development
project is right for our rural area and quality of environment.
Sincerely yours,
Lisa and Paul Sansom
You don't often get email from maddy@rof.net. Learn why this is important
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry; Heather MacDonald
Subject:FW: Please Deny Spring Valley
Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:02:07 AM
From: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 4:57 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: FW: Please Deny Spring Valley
From: Megan Chester <maddy@rof.net>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 9:45 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>; pbberry@garfield-county.com; Perry Will
<pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>; mdamson@garfield-county.com; Tom Jankovsky
<tjankovsky@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Please Deny Spring Valley
Dear Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson, Perry Will, Glenn Hartmann, Philip Berry,
Thank you for ALL you do for our community and The Roaring Fork Valley.
I am writing to urge you to deny the Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD due to its
significant threats to our community and environment.
This development risks:
Water Resources: Severe strain on our water supply, requiring thorough assessment..
Traffic Congestion: Exacerbated traffic, impacting safety and evacuation capacity.
Wildlife Habitat: Destruction of critical habitats and increased human-animal conflict.
Quality of Life: Diminished rural character and peaceful environment.
Please prioritize our community's long-term interests over short-term development gains.
Do not approve this project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Megan Chester
275 Sierra Vista
Carbondale,Co 81623
Sent from my iPhone
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry; Heather MacDonald
Subject:FW: Garfield County website inquiry
Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:23:07 AM
From: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 4:39 PM
To: Glenn Hartmann <GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: FW: Garfield County website inquiry
From: Communications <Communications@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 1:58 PM
To: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Garfield County website inquiry
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment
Name: Karen Moculeski
Email: kkis1@aol.com
Phone Number: 13145665456
Message: Dear Commissioner Will:
I am writing to request that you deny the Spring Valley Ranch substantial PUD
Amendment that is before the Garfield County Planning Commission. There are
several reasons to deny the application including the failure of applicant to provide
sufficient evidence of physical water supply given the high impact use of water for 577
housing units, 200 acre private golf course, and other accessory uses including a
general store; increase of wild fire danger with the concentration of visitors and
residents and the virtual complete destruction of prime wildlife habitat. There is no
way to accommodate the increase in anticipated traffic and the 5,000+ vehicle trips
per day will negatively impact CMC students who nearly all commute to the school for
classes.
What about compatibility? Has applicant attempted to show in its application that it is
compatible with a rural environment with limited roads and infrastructure? See
Section 7-103 of the LUC. Applicant is required to show that its proposed
development is compatible with adjacent land and it cannot do so. The number of
housing units, densely configured, is not comparable with the immediately
surrounding area, which is largely agricultural and rural and does not have dense
housing. There is no retail anywhere near the proposed development and is in fact,
miles away. Likewise, there are no private golf courses or private ski hills in the area,
none of which are compatible with the rural environment. Traffic generated by the
development will interfere with the existing community college and can not in anyway
be compatible given the limited road infrastructure which cannot be improved to
mitigate the gross increase anticipated. There is no benefit to the community with this
development and in fact, there are only negative consequences. Please deny this
application.
Karen Moculeski
1140 Sunset Lane
Carbondale, CO 81623
From:Avalanche Outfitters
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry; Tom Jankovsky; Mike Samson; Perry Will
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 11:55:45 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from avalancheoutfitters@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important
Good Morning Commissioners,
i may be a little late to the party but i've just learned about this planned development being
considered. I have come to the understanding that this will be a very large private
development with little to no help to the general public except some possible jobs. There are
plenty of jobs currently available in the valley so to me this doesn't add much value.
My biggest concern is the loss of wildlife habitat, 6000 acres of habitat is a huge value for
wintering wildlife especially on a southern facing slope, I personally feel that if the wildlife
could access across Hwy 82 from the south to the north side easier then this area would be
able sustain a lot more wildlife. Our wildlife herds are already having issues with population
growth. Now that we have introduced the wolves this will put even more strain on these
animals, also they will lose habitat such as Aspen Glen and need another place to migrate to.
Wildlife needs to be the number one issue when anything like this is looked at, we have way
to much habitat loss especially for a private luxury subdivision.
This Subdivision is proof that Aspen is expanding further than it should, the Billionaires are
pushing the Millionaires out and they decide to move down valley and take away more of
Rural CO for their private luxuries. How do any of the private luxuries benefit the direct area,
there will be way more traffic in these rural areas which will increase wildlife deaths, safety
concerns of speeding, trash, noise pollution and the worst a loss of water for downstream
residents and wildlife.
I urge you to deny this possible permit, this land is better suited vacant than to make a profit.
This land is better for suited for wildlife than any luxury estates. Dont let Aspen move down
valley and begin its takeover, keep Aspen in Aspen and let Carbondale be Carbondale. Aspen
has slowly been creeping down valley, and just like any other luxury resort town as they creep
further down they push out the locals.
Please vote NO stand up for Rural Coloradans, stand up for Blue Collar Coloradans, stand up
for Wildlife, and KEEP THE LUXURIES IN ASPEN
Sincerely,
Josh Wamboldt
Avalanche Outfitters
avalancheoutfitters@gmail.com
(970)390-8433 (C)
(970)963-1144
www.redstonestables.com
Don't Forget to like us on Facebook for Updates and Pictures Facebook.com/AvalancheOutfitters2
follow us on Instagram @Avalanche_Outfitters
From:georgejtzan@gmail.com
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Subject:Spring Valley Ranch PUD - File No. PUAA - 05-23-8967
Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:56:21 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Some people who received this message don't often get email from georgejtzan@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important
Gentlemen:
Please find below my opposition to the above-reference application. May I kindly request that
you circulate this email to the County Planning Commissioners.
My name is George Tzanetopoulos. I live at 2727 Elk Springs Drive, Glenwood Springs.
First and foremost, let me express my thanks to all of you for your service to our community.
I write today to oppose the Spring Valley Ranch PUD application.
I would like in particular to focus on the negative traffic safety and congestion impacts of the
proposal as it affects: (1) the intersection of Highway 82 and County Road 114 (aka Spring
Valley Road and/or CMC Road); and (2) CR 114 as that road proceeds uphill past the
Colorado Mountain College Spring Valley Campus and beyond.
The stretch of Highway 82 in issue is one of the most dangerous roadways in Garfield
County. Indeed, just last March a crash at the intersection resulted in two fatalities. CR 114 is
a narrow, steep, and winding two-lane road. Both the intersection and road are entirely
unsuited to the Applicant’s proposal.
I respectfully submit that the Applicant’s proposal violates the Garfield County Land Use and
Development Code (“Code”) in a number of respects discussed below and, therefore, should
be denied.
Construction Traffic is Not Considered, Addressed, Or Disclosed By The Applicant
As you know, Code 4-203 requires that an applicant’s traffic impact study and narrative
address trip generation projections not only for the “completed development,” but also for “the
construction phase(s). The Applicant has utterly failed to comply with the requirement to
address the proposed construction phase traffic.
The applicant submitted two different Traffic Impact Studies. The first was conducted by
McDowell Engineering. That study obviously did not come up with the results for which
Applicant was looking. So, the Applicant commissioned another study by Fox Tuttle. The
Fox Tuttle study performed no meaningful new work. Rather, the gist of the study was to
generate lower impact numbers simply by changing assumptions.
These studies address what they denote as “BG” or background traffic -- in short, traffic
without the impact of the proposed development. They also address what they denote as
“Total” traffic -- that is, background traffic plus the traffic generated by the completed
development. I will return shortly to this work.
But, the enormous elephant in the room is the work that they notably did not perform -- any
study or disclosure of the impact of construction traffic on the intersection of Highway 82 and
CR 114 or on CR114 above the intersection.
The Applicant proposes to construct over a period of time spanning decades hundreds of
homes, a ski resort, golf courses, retail, commercial, governmental service buildings, parks,
and roads. The volume of very large construction equipment, trucks, cement mixers and
pumps, as well as daily trips by the people who will be engaged in this construction is
staggering. All of that construction traffic will necessarily travel through the intersection of
Highway 82 and CR 114 and then the two-lane CR 114. Not one bit of impact of that traffic is
addressed in the Applicant’s studies or other submissions.
This omission is a plain violation of Code 4-204 and, I submit, is in and of itself disqualifying.
The Proposal Violates Code 7-107
Code 7-107 provides that access to and from the site “shall be safe” and “shall not cause
traffic congestion or unsafe traffic conditions.” The Applicant’s proposal fails on all points.
The McDowell study shows that, even with just “background” traffic, the intersection of
Highway 82 and CR 114 Grades an LOS “F”:
That same study demonstrates that at the conclusion of the project “Total” traffic (i.e.,
background traffic, plus traffic generated by the completed development, even as “mitigated”)
fails at an even worse level:
And, please note, this level of failure does not include in the least, the impact of decades of
extraordinarily heavy construction traffic. Add that construction traffic to the picture and it is
manifest that the proposal violates Code 7-107. For those additional reasons, the Application
should be denied.
The Applicant’s Proposed “Mitigation,” To The Extent That It Can Be Discerned,
Makes Matters Worse
The McDowell and Fox Tuttle reports do not agree on mitigation steps for the intersection of
Highway 82 and CR 114 and the Applicant’s other materials do not appear to take a position.
The consultants’ reports each rely on some combination of adding turn lanes to the
intersection and adjusting signal timing. However, as the McDowell report ultimately
concludes on the issue, the intersection of SH 82 & CR 114/Spring Valley Road “will see LOS
F on many movements in both Year 2023 Background and Total traffic conditions, with these
movements continuing to degrade into Year 2045 Background and Total traffic conditions….
From a practical perspective it is impossible to fully mitigate all movements to be less than
failing. . .” And, not to belabor the point, this conclusion was reached without taking into
account any impact of construction traffic.
It also bears noting that the Applicant’s narrative proposes to perform whatever mitigation
construction on the intersection it ultimately settles upon during Phase 1 of site construction.
In short, Applicant proposes to add an enormous amount of site construction traffic traveling
through the intersection at the same time as it engages in a terribly disruptive road
construction project at an already failed intersection.
Although the Applicant says that it will engage in some sort “mitigation” construction on CR
114 as the road travels up to and then past the Colorado Mountain College Spring Valley
campus, it does not specify precisely of what that mitigation will consist. The Applicant’s
phasing schedule for this unspecified work, however, proposes the same disaster as it proposes
for the intersection. In each case, work on sections of CR 114 is proposed to be done at the
same time as Applicant is engaged in the construction of phases of site development. The
proposal to pound a very heavy volume of construction traffic up and down narrow two-lane
road at the same time as engaging in road construction on that very same road is utterly unsafe
and will cause enormous congestion.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the proposal violates that Code.
The Applicant’s Conclusions Regarding Bicycle And Pedestrian Use Of CR 114 Are
Deeply Flawed And Dangerous
The McDowell study reported minimal bicycle and pedestrian use of CR 114. Its conclusions
are not surprising, given that it looked for such use at a time when it was unlikely to occur.
The study did its counts in late October and early November. However, this road is heavily
used by cyclists and pedestrians during the warm weather months by recreational users and
students to make their way between the bus stop at the 82/114 intersection and the CMC
campus.
And, you do not have to take my word for it. CR 114 is marked up and down the road as a
designated bike route, signed along the way at pedestrian crossings, and marked for single file
bike use because the road is too narrow for cyclists to ride two abreast:
Of particular note in considering the reliability of these traffic impact studies is the fact that
the consultants reported making their counts at the 82/114 intersection. Having done so, they
necessarily walked past the signs at the intersection designating the road as bike route and
posting the single file requirement:
The proposal to send decades of heavy construction traffic up and down this road would
plainly create a safety hazard that also violates the Code.
Conclusion
Once again, thank you for your work on behalf of our community. I respectfully submit that
the only correct result with respect to this application is to deny it.
Respectfully submitted,
George J. Tzanetopoulos
George J. Tzanetopoulos
From:Janna Six
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Cc:Lynn Babicka
Subject:Comments on Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 7:31:31 PM
To: Garfield County Planning Commission Members
c/o Glenn Hartmann (Principal Planner) ghartmann@garfield-county.com,
Phillip Berry (Senior Planner) pberry@garfield-county.com,
Thank you for circulating the following comments to each of the Planning Commission Members before
the April 9th hearing.
Janna Six (on behalf of Lynn Babicka)
303-530-2222
Subject: Opposition to Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) PUD Amendment
Date: April 3, 2025
Thank you for considering my comments on the proposed Spring Valley Ranch (SVR) Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment. As a long-term landowner in the area, my family and I are deeply
concerned about the potential impact this project will have on the surrounding environment,
wildlife, and natural resources.
Background
My family owns 455 acres of land within sight of the proposed SVR development, a property we
have held for 55 years. We have long contemplated the best use for our land, prioritizing its
preservation due to its undisturbed natural beauty, proximity to wildlife, and stunning views of Mt.
Sopris. With these values in mind, we are in the process of establishing a conservation easement to
ensure that this land remains open space and a sanctuary for wildlife in perpetuity.
However, the SVR development threatens to irreversibly damage the surrounding landscape, disrupt
critical wildlife habitats, infringe on our property’s water rights, and jeopardize our vision for
conservation.
Water Concerns
Water is a critical resource, not just for human consumption, but for the health of ecosystems and
wildlife. The only development we have on our land is a watering hole for livestock and wildlife,
which is sustained by a permitted well. Any substantial extraction of surface or subsurface water by
the SVR development is likely to have a direct and detrimental effect on our well. A reduction in
water availability would harm not only our land but also wildlife that depends on these resources for
survival. Water access for wildlife is especially critical during dry seasons, and any disruptions could
have cascading effects on the ecosystem.
Impact on Wildlife Habitat
Spring Valley is a critical wintering habitat for elk and deer, whose herds are already struggling under
the pressures of expanding human activity, traffic, and recreational use in the area. SVR property
offers one of the few remaining safe havens for these animals to give birth, raise their young, and
find refuge in harsh winters. New development on SVR’s property would reduce the available habitat
and further endanger these already stressed populations. The loss of this critical winter range would
likely lead to a steep decline in elk and deer herds, which are vital to the health of the local
ecosystem and are an integral part of our region’s natural heritage.
Golf Course Development
As an avid golfer, I appreciate the recreational value that golf courses provide. However, the
proposed private golf course at SVR is ill-conceived, especially in this sensitive environmental setting.
There are already twelve golf courses within a 45-minute drive of Glenwood Springs, making an
additional course unnecessary. More importantly, this golf course would be developed in an area
vital for wildlife habitat and would contribute to the competition for already scarce water resources.
The needs of part-time, wealthy residents should not take precedence over the preservation of
critical wildlife habitats and the long-term sustainability of our water supply.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposed Spring Valley Ranch development poses significant risks to the
environmental integrity of the area, threatens critical wildlife habitats, and risks depleting local
water resources. It also undermines our family’s efforts to protect the natural landscape through
conservation. I strongly urge the Planning Commission to consider the irreversible damage this
project will cause and to reject the proposed PUD amendment.
Preserving the natural beauty and ecological health of Spring Valley is essential not only for those of
us who live and steward the land, but also for future generations and the wildlife that depends on it
for survival.
Sincerely,
Lynn P Babicka
Landowner, Spring Valley
lpbabicka@gmail.com
772-321-5352
$r;
11 :l
,\ ^;llr
sd
.,.,.- .,*'n,
-- ,'t':'\-," ,,r-rl fi'
4
March 31,2025
Garfietd County Admi nistration & Commissioners:
My name is Gary Morary, I am a resident residing at 23 Wood Nymph Lane, Gtenwood
Springs in Spring Val.l,ey up the CMC road 114.1am sending this letter to you to express my
great concerns for the proposed sate and devetopment of Spring Vattey Ranch.
This devetopment witl have detrimenta[ effects of our community and woutd not be
beneficiat, I am tisting some of the key reasons betow:
Traffic- We atready are maxed for traffic on HWY 82 and the CMC road #114 has gotten very
busy in the past 18 yrs I have lived here. The amount of traffic increased with this
devetopment woutd be unmanageabl,e and affect atl, the surrounding roads. This woutd go
on for years.
With the additional traff ic concerns comes fire concerns... lf there were a fire in the area,
safe emergency routes woutd be difficutt for everyone to exit and fire fighters and
emergency responders to get to us. We onty have 2 accessibte emergency routes without
additionaI traffic.
We then have our Livel,ihood of water. This devetopment woutd have a catastrophic impact
on the water suppl,y we have currentty. We are in a drought with winters being more and
more mitd. With over new homes, gotf course, stores, etc there is not enough water!
Then there is the issue of our precious witdLife, and migration area we have here.
I hope you witt pl.ease consider atl, of these negative impacts and many other reasons why
this devetopment shoutd NOT be abte to be approved in Spring Vatley.
Thank you,
Gary Morary
From:Lynne A
To:Philip Berry
Subject:Opposition to the Proposed Spring Valley Ranch Development
Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 8:49:26 AM
You don't often get email from lynne.uhl2@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
9/29/2025
Dear Mr. Philip Berry,
I am opposed to the proposed development of Spring Valley Ranch. I live full-time at 1455 County Road
102. It seems that every year there is a new threat of over development in my area. Consider the
Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan's goal of maintaining our rural character. Please do not
approve this poorly designed plan.
Our area is in the category of “extreme drought” (source U.S. Drought Monitor). Water wells in the area
are experiencing permanent draw down. Adding over 500 new homes and extravagant amenities is
absolutely foolhardy.
Traffic demands would require that the developer improve the treacherous Red Canyon road (CR 115) to
two paved lanes with guard rails. County Road 114 must also be improved at the developer’s expense.
These improvements are critical for fire evacuations (which are common in this area).
I urge you to reject this poorly designed proposal. This development should be denied due to the
following:
1. Lack of water
2. Inadequate roads
3. Inadequate wildfire evacuation
Thank you,
Lynne Uhl
—————————-
Lynne Uhl
1455 County Road 102
Carbondale, CO 81623
970-948-2888
Lynne.Uhl2@gmail.com
9/28/25
You don't often get email from lynne.uhl2@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
From:Glenn Hartmann
To:Philip Berry
Cc:Heather MacDonald
Subject:FW: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch Development Proposal
Date:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 11:24:53 AM
From: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 9:59 AM
To: Glenn Hartmann <GHartmann@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: FW: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch Development Proposal
From: Lynne A <lynne.uhl2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:51 AM
To: Perry Will <pwill@garfieldcountyco.gov>
Subject: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch Development Proposal
9/29/2025
Dear Mr. Perry Will, Garfield County Commissioner,
I am opposed to the proposed development of Spring Valley Ranch. I live full-time at 1455 County Road
102. It seems that every year there is a new threat of over development in my area. Consider the
Garfield County 2030 Comprehensive Plan's goal of maintaining our rural character. Please do not
approve this poorly designed plan.
Our area is in the category of “extreme drought” (source U.S. Drought Monitor). Water wells in the area
are experiencing permanent draw down. Adding over 500 new homes and extravagant amenities is
absolutely foolhardy.
Traffic demands would require that the developer improve the treacherous Red Canyon road (CR 115) to
two paved lanes with guard rails. County Road 114 must also be improved at the developer’s expense.
These improvements are critical for fire evacuations (which are common in this area).
I urge you to reject this poorly designed proposal. This development should be denied due to the
following:
1. Lack of water
2. Inadequate roads
3. Inadequate wildfire evacuation
Thank you,
10/8/25
Lynne Uhl
—————————-
Lynne Uhl
1455 County Road 102
Carbondale, CO 81623
970-948-2888
Lynne.Uhl2@gmail.com
ROARING FORK AUDUBON
October 4, 2025
Re: Spring Valley Ranch Proposed Development
Dear Glenn Hartmann,
Roaring Fork Audubon (RFA), a local chapter of the National Audubon Society, represents more than 960 members across four counties—from Aspen to Vail to Rifle—covering the entire Roaring Fork Watershed. Our survey team is widely recognized as the most experienced avian monitoring group in this part of Colorado. With decades of combined fieldwork, we are regularly called on by organizations such as the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) to provide avian expertise for Bioblitz surveys and ecological assessments.
Wetlands are among the most imperiled habitats in our county. With climate change intensifying, we cannot afford to lose even one. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, loss of wetlands has accelerated by 50% in the past decade. The 2025 State of the Birds
Report, a collaboration of more than a dozen leading conservation organizations, warns that nearly 75% of North American bird
species are declining, with the steepest drops among grassland, shorebird and arid-zone species. In total, 112 species are now considered “Tipping Point” birds that have lost more than half their populations in just a few decades.
Within this alarming context, the Spring Valley wetlands are prominent as a rare gem. It is one of only three known sites in our watershed where Yellow-headed Blackbirds nest alongside dozens of other increasingly scarce species. Over the past four years, our surveys from Kindall Road have recorded 83 species, including 22 Watchlist
Species of Concern, a number certain to rise as data are updated.
The ecological value of these wetlands cannot be overstated. Migratory birds have used these same wetlands for generations, passing along the location to their young who have relied on it to make it to their
destinations. For more than five years, Sandhill Cranes have returned there to nest. Long-distance migrants such as Wilson’s Phalarope and
Willet depend on these wetlands as a critical stopover on their journey
from South America to the Alaskan tundra. Eight species of ducks nest in the reeds and grasses; and the elegant, threatened Northern
Pintail refuels here during migration. Even species tied to other parts of Colorado, Lark Bunting (our state bird), Sage Thrasher, White-
faced Ibis and Loggerhead Shrike, have been documented at Spring Valley.
If these wetlands vanish, the lifelines for countless species will vanish with them. They have nowhere else to go. Wetlands cannot be rebuilt once destroyed; they are centuries old. Diverting more than a million gallons of county water each day for the recreation of a few would drain a precious public resource and devastate the residents and wildlife that depend on it for survival.
Predators including Golden Eagles, Bald Eagles, Northern
Harriers, Prairie Falcons and Peregrine Falcons rely on the rich hunting these wetlands provide. Six swallow species glean insects from above while performing aerial displays. Two threatened hummingbirds, elusive rails and nesting sandpipers contribute to the extraordinary diversity of these wetlands. In autumn, flocks of Mountain Bluebirds gather here in unprecedented numbers to feed on the abundant insects left from the wetlands even after it has dried up.
Birds are the silent workforce of our planet by controlling insects, spreading seeds, pollinating plants and cleaning our environment. The loss of birds can change entire ecosystems. Without them, ecosystems would fail; and so would we.
Beyond birds, the site supports wintering Elk and elusive Snowshoe
Hares, wildlife deeply valued by our residents. For our members, neighbors and visitors, Spring Valley represents a sanctuary for biodiversity and an essential part of the valley’s identity and quality of life.
This decision rests in your hands. Approving this development would trade a living legacy for short-term gain benefiting only an out-of-state developer. Protecting Spring Valley will safeguard an irreplaceable resource for our wildlife, our community and future generations.
We urge you to deny the proposed development and preserve
these extraordinary wetlands. To do so is the right choice for today and the legacy our valley deserves.
With respect and urgency,
Mary Harris Chair, Roaring Fork Audubon
1
Birds of the Wetlands and Associated Areas of Kindall Road
Watchlist Species of Concern Highlighted in Red For those unfamiliar with Colorado’s birdlife, this is an impressive number of species for such a small, seasonal wetland. Though based on four years of Roaring Fork Audubon surveys, more species almost certainly remain undiscovered.
Anseriformes (Ducks, Geese, Swans) • Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) • Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) Tipping Point Species • Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis) • Gadwall (Mareca strepera) • Blue-winged Teal (Spatula discors) • Cinnamon Teal (Spatula cyanoptera) • Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) • Redhead (Aythya americana) • Ring-necked Duck (I) • Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis)
Galliformes (Turkeys, Grouse, Quail) • Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
Podicipediformes (Grebes) • Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) • Eared Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis)
Columbiformes (Pigeons and Doves) • Eurasian Collared-Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) • Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Declining in the Roaring Fork Valley
Caprimulgiformes (Nightjars, Swifts, Hummingbirds) • Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri) • Broad-tailed Hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus)
Cathartiformes (New World Vultures) • Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
Accipitriformes (Hawks, Eagles, Osprey) • Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Nest construction observed in 2024 • Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) America’s Bird
2
• Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) • Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius) • Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) • Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Subspecies calurus/alascensis observed • Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Gruiformes (Rails, Coots, Cranes) • Sora (Porzana carolina) • Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) • American Coot (Fulica americana)
Gruidae (Cranes) • Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis) Successful nesting in recent years
Charadriiformes (Shorebirds and Allies) • Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) • Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata) • Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius) • Willet (Tringa semipalmata) • Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor)
Pelecaniformes (Ibises, Herons, Egrets) • White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) • Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
Piciformes (Woodpeckers) • Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Falconiformes (Falcons) • American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) • Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus)Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Passeriformes (Perching Birds)
Tyrannidae (Flycatchers and Kingbirds) • Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) • Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) • Dusky Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri) • Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya) • Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
3
Laniidae (Shrikes) • Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Corvidae (Jays, Crows, Ravens) • Woodhouse’s Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma woodhouseii) • Black-billed Magpie (Pica hudsonia) • American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Northwestern Crow now lumped • Common Raven (Corvus corax)
Hirundinidae (Swallows) • Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) • Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) • Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) • Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) • Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) • Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
Aegithalidae & Paridae (Bushtits and Chickadees) • Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) • Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus)
Mimidae (Thrashers and Catbirds) • Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) • Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Endangered in Canada
Turdidae (Thrushes and Bluebirds) • American Robin (Turdus migratorius) • Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides)
Passerellidae (Towhees and Sparrows) • Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) • Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) • Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) • Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) • Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) • Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) • Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) • Lark Bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) Colorado State Bird
4
Icteridae (Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Orioles) • Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) One of only three known colonies in the Roaring ForkValley • Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) • Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) • Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) • Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) • Bullock’s Oriole (Icterus bullockii)
Fringillidae (Finches) • House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) • Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus)
Passeridae (Old World Sparrows) • House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
Cardinalidae (Grosbeaks, Buntings, Tanagers) • Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana)
Parulidae (Wood-Warblers) • Orange-crowned Warbler (Leiothlypis celata) • Virginia’s Warbler (Oreothlypis virginiae) • Yellow Warbler (Setophaga americana) • Black-throated Gray Warbler (Setophaga nigrescens) • Audubon’s Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata auduboni)
RFA has not yet surveyed in the evening; however, we believe this habitat
will support Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) and Common Poorwill
(Phalaenoptilus nuttallii).
Mammals:
• Elk (Cervus canadensis) — Family Cervidae
• Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) — Family Cervidae
• Least Chipmunk (Neotamias minimus) — Family Sciuridae
• Wyoming Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus elegans) — Family Sciuridae
• Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel (Callospermophilus lateralis) — Family Sciuridae
• Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) — Family Leporidae
1
Community Development Department
Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendments (File PUAA-05-23-8967)
Referral Comments
Referral Exhibit
No. Referral Description 7-1 Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District – February 6, 2024 7-2 Colorado State Forest Service – February 1, 2024 7-3 Colorado Geologic Survey – February 23, 2024 7-4 Garfield County Public Health – February 23, 2024 7-5 Garfield County Consulting Engineer – February 6, 2024, August 15, 2023 7-6 Garfield County Road and Bridge – January 30, 2024, January 13, 2025 7-7 Garfield County Vegetation Management – February 13, 2024 7-8 Colorado Parks and Wildlife – September 3, 2024, February 27, 2024, February 20, 2024 7-9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – February 8, 2024 7-10 Glenwood Springs Fire Department – February 8, 2024 7-11 Consulting Traffic Engineer – August 15, 2024 7-12 RFTA – March 25, 2024 7-13 Glenwood Springs – February 26, 2024 7-14 Eagle County – February 20, 2024 7-15 CDPHE – January 19, 2024 7-16 AVLT – April 4, 2024 7-17 CDOT – May 9, 2024March 25, 2024 7-18 Consulting Water Engineer – September 6, 2024, March 24, 2025 7-19 DWR – September 12, 2024
Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Plan Review
Date: August 16, 2023 – Revised Review 02-06-2024
Project: PUD Amendment
Applicant: Storied Development, LLC.
Rich Wagner – 530-4483157
9875 N. Tuhaye Park Drive
Kamas, UT 84036
Owner: Spring Valley Holdings, LLC
Mar�n Van Ardenne – 415-738-0295
600 Montgomery ST
40th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT
The staff of the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District is providing the following comments on the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD Amendment Application as a courtesy based on a referral by Garfield County planning staff for an initial
review and preliminary comments. As the subject property is outside the boundary of the District, the District does not
have administrative jurisdiction. Therefore, the comments that follow are advisory only in nature and the district shall
not be held responsible for its interpretation of the facts stated by the applicant or the district’s interpretation and
understanding of the County’s planning process and County land use code.
EMS Response
• CRFPD recommends that considera�on be made to how EMS with Advanced Life Support (ALS) response and
transport will be conducted and subsidized. Our concern is that with the addi�ons to the recrea�onal ac�vi�es
that are proposed, call volume will increase in the area, and currently there is no plan to provide Emergency
Medical Services.
• Based on the current emergency ambulance response distance and planned development of a ski area, CRFPD
recommend a helicopter landing zone be designated for emergent transport.
Clear width to landing zone = 300 feet.
Safety Circle = 90 feet.
Pad = 20 feet.
7.11.2 Fire Protec�on
• With professional observa�on and experience, the plan for an all-volunteer fire service is not recommended.
Consider a combina�on department with paid full-�me responders that will help to manage the training,
response and administra�on of the two fire houses and their firefigh�ng apparatus.
Considera�ons:
Training Plan.
Recer�fica�on of training and administra�on.
Maintenance and replacement requirements.
7.11.2 (8)(10) Road Access and Fire Protec�on Standards
• Airial and fire apparatus access with no comment needed.
• CRFPD recommends that the project team consider expanding the construc�on plan for fire sta�ons to included
employee housing to incen�vize employees needed to manage opera�ons.
7.11.1 Wildfire Mi�ga�on/Q Wildfire Mi�ga�on Report 2023
• Credit for the strong Wildfire Mi�ga�on Report on the proposed PUD. This report assists with the development
of a CWPP plan that will help in the con�nued wildfire preparedness and emergency response strategies. CRFPD
strongly recommends that the LCMD work toward a “Fire Wise Community” designa�on to help in the educa�on
of residents and to fund large scale wildland fire mi�ga�on projects.
• Considera�on should be made for residents to shelter in place within their own homes depending on class of
construc�on as recommended in the 2021 IWUIC. The Wildfire Mi�ga�on Report talks about Collec�on point
predesignated to facilitate evacua�ng ci�zens with the golf course clubhouse being considered for the point (PP
34). May �mes people are caught in their vehicles trying to leave a fast-moving fire. Consider areas for safety
zones that include their own homes in some circumstances.
The comments pertaining to the establishment of a new PUD plan map and PUD guide governing future development of
the property are based on the unincorporated status and the establishment of the Landis Creek Metropolitan District
(LCMD). It is prudent for the stakeholders to evaluate recommenda�ons from the experts of Carbondale and Rural Fire
Protec�on District to help in the protec�on of life and property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Plan Review with addi�onal comments 02-06-2024
For Glenn Heartmen.
Sec 1.08 Transporta�on Impact Study.
1. Reference comment on Direc�onal Distribu�on of CR 115.
a. We need to be looking at 115 (Red Canyon Rd) as an emergency access and egress element for the en�re
community as the area con�nues growth and not just keep assuming that 114 will manage egress. I
recognize that the McDowell engineering ’s response is to close 115 and open to emergency vehicles only
if this project is approved. Without substan�al improvements to 115, I do not recommend this road for
emergency vehicles either. What are our op�ons for road improvement looking at 115 as an egress
road for wildfire or another emergency’s?
Sec 7.11.1 Wildfire Mi�ga�on
1. I like the Fire Adapted Community standards but also would like this idea taken to the next level and become a
Fire Wise Community that will allow for more direct ownership to the home owners in helping to con�nue the
work for the subdivision. This also will allow for the possibility for grants in the mi�ga�on of the area.
Sec 5.11.7 Fire Protec�on
1. Fire Protec�on Standards (7)
a. Fire-Flow Requirements for One and two-family dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 Buildings and townhouse
will meet the requirement of Appendix B of the IFC 2015 as adopted by Garfield County Ordinance No.
2018-02.
February 1st, 2024
Glenn Hartmann and Philip Berry
Garfield County Community Development Department
Dear Glenn and Philip,
Subject: PUAA-05-23-8967 – Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substantial
Modification/Amendment
The wildfire hazard for the proposed developments are Low. However, a low rating does
not mean a development is immune to the effects of wildfire. There are still wildfire
hazards that should be mitigated by following the recommendations listed in this review.
During the review of properties we look at many factors relating to wildfire hazard
including: slope and aspect, lot size, natural fuels, road systems and access, and available
water sources. Most of the recommended action items have been addressed in Document
1.17 Wildfire Mitigation Report.
In areas adjacent to proposed structures and also where clearing for development is not
expected to occur, such as open spaces and natural areas, fuels reduction and
maintenance of past treatments should occur. The goal of fuels reduction is to reduce the
amount of combustible fuel available to a fire and thus reducing fire intensity so that a
structure may survive a wildfire and/or crews can safely suppress a fire. Ladder fuels,
surface fuels and crown fuels should be targeted as referenced in The Home Ignition
Zone: A guide to preparing your home for wildfire and creating defensible space. The
Wildfire Mitigation Report addressed several fuels treatments to help reduce fuels,
promotedefensible space, create roadside fuel breaks, and annual mowing, so following
through on these activities is integral to wildfire safety. In addition, expanding on these
fuels treatments and being proactive in identifying areas of concern in the future is
important to the residents’ safety.
As addressed in the Wildfire Mitigation Report, it is highly recommended that defensible
space be created around any new or existing development in Zones 1 (0-5 ft from
structure), 2 (5-30 ft from structure) and 3 (30-100 ft from structure). Defensible space is
an area around a structure in which the forest fuels have been removed, reduced, or
modified to reduce wildfire intensity. This is critical when taking into account wildfire
suppression efficacy for this development. In addition, the density of homes and their
small average lot size makes defensible space that much more important.
Again as referenced in the Wildfire Mitigation Report, ‘Hardened’ home construction
techniques are an important factor in reducing the probability of home ignitions from
both wildland fuels and from structure to structure ignitions. It is recommended that
noncombustible roof, decking and siding materials be used in all new construction.
Roofing and siding materials are the two biggest factors in structure ignitability during a
wildfire. By taking these steps you will lessen the risk of the structure being consumed
during a wildfire.
For further information on the Home Ignition Zone please refer to the following
publications.
https://csfs.colostate.edu/media/sites/22/2021/04/2021_CSFS_HIZGuide_Web.pdf
If you have additional questions or need clarification on any recommendations feel free
to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Matthew Mastalir
Matthew Mastalir
Forester
Colorado State Forest Service
Rifle Field Office
(970) 625-3969
GA-24-0007_1 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Mod_Amd PUAA-05-23-8967
1:23 PM, 02/23/2024
February 23, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Director, and
Philip Berry, Planner III
Garfield County Community Development
Location:
39.515, -107.227
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substantial Modification/Amendment
File Number PUAA-05-23-8967; Garfield County, CO; CGS Unique No. GA-24-0007
Dear Glenn and Philip:
The Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Modification /
Amendment referral. I understand the applicant proposes a 577-unit development on approximately 5908 acres
southeast of Glenwood Springs. The available referral documents include a Geologic Evaluation, Spring Valley
Ranch, County Road 115 (CTL|Thompson, Inc. Project No. GS06730.000-115, February 23, 2023), and a
response to Garfield County Comments, Spring Valley Ranch (CTL, December 14, 2023).
CGS recognizes that a PUD has previously been approved for this property, and that the proposed modification
maintains “the same density in a more compact and clustered format.” However, since CTL’s original geological
evaluations were completed in 1998-2003, more detailed geologic mapping has been completed1. Areas of
mapped landslides are more extensive than shown on CTL’s February 2023 Geologic Hazard Maps and in the
3/1/2023 Spring Valley Ranch Impact Analysis by Western Bionomics.
While landslides and areas of potentially unstable slopes, soil creep, and slope failure complex may appear to be
dormant or stable under existing conditions, the proposed development will involve ground disturbances,
including grading, cuts and fills for roads, utilities, driveways and building pads. This will change existing load
and drainage patterns, potentially destabilizing slopes and resulting in local slope failure, or instability and slope
movement on a larger scale.
If the soils on or near any part of the proposed development or surrounding area become saturated through
excessive rainfall, snowmelt, landscape irrigation, a water or sewer pipeline failure, infiltration from onsite
wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), or other source of water, the soils could lose strength and fail slowly or
catastrophically.
Ground movement at any scale is likely to result in damage to homes, yards, driveways, utilities, and roads.
Avoidance is the preferred mitigation for landslides, and CGS discourages grading and development within and
adjacent to identified landslide and potentially unstable slope areas.
CGS strongly recommends that the county require the following prior to approval of any plat or grading:
• a revised geologic hazards evaluation specifically addressing landslide and development-related slope
instability hazards, and demonstrating that existing slopes and proposed constructed slopes will have a
factor of safety of at least 1.5 under developed conditions. The evaluation should include slope stability
analysis of proposed road, driveway and building pad cuts, fills, and retaining walls exceeding four feet.
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1801 Moly Road
Golden, Colorado 80401
Matthew L. Morgan
State Geologist and
Director
Glenn Hartmann and Philip Berry
February 23, 2024
Page 2 of 2
GA-24-0007_1 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Substantial Mod_Amd PUAA-05-23-8967
1:23 PM, 02/23/2024
The impact on stability of changes in grading, loading, groundwater levels, precipitation and infiltration,
vegetation, etc. must be evaluated.
• Slope stability, rockfall, debris inundation, and evaporite-related subsidence risks should be evaluated
and reviewed at a phase- or filing-specific scale once a lot layout is proposed, and prior to preliminary
plat approval.
Site-specific geotechnical recommendations should include strategies for mitigating local slope instability,
including maximum allowable temporary and permanent cut and fill heights and slope angles, based on site-
specific, undisturbed and residual shear strength and friction angle values.
CGS is available to review additional geologic/geotechnical information and analysis provided to the county.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need further
review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or email carlson@mines.edu.
Sincerely,
Jill Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
1 Kirkham, R.M., Streufert, R.K., and Cappa, J.A., 2009, Geologic Map of the Shoshone Quadrangle,
Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Map Series MS-35, 1:24,000,
Kirkham, R.M. and Widmann, B.L., 2008, Geologic Map of the Carbondale Quadrangle, Garfield
County, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Map Series MS-36, 1:24,000, and
Kirkham, R.M., Streufert, R.K., Cappa, J.A., Shaw, C.A., Allen, J.L., and Schroeder, T.J. II, 2009,
Geologic Map of the Glenwood Springs Quadrangle, Garfield County, Colorado, Colorado Geological
Survey, Map Series MS-38, 1:24,000.
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote health and prevent disease
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Attn: Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Planner III
RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD, Substantial Modification/Amendment
Parcel ID Nos.: 218716100169, 218720100168, 218726200168, & 218733100152
4000 County Road 115
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
File # PUAA‐05‐23‐8967
February 23, 2024
Glenn and Philip,
Garfield County Public Health (GCPH) has reviewed the application for the Spring Valley PUD Substantial
Modification/Amendment, and we have the following comments.
1. Drinking Water: The applicant proposes that the development will be served potable water by
the Landis Creek Metropolitan District (LCMD). The applicant indicates that LCMD will be
responsible for obtaining appropriate Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) permits and will operate a community water system for the PUD. The applicant
provided a Legal Water Supply Report and a Water Supply and Distribution Plan which indicated
adequate water supply and quality. The domestic water supply for Spring Valley Ranch will be
provided by numerous wells and a spring on the property. The Water Supply and Distribution
Plan indicated that all the existing well casings and pipes will be replaced. Some of the wells will
need to be redrilled. Pump testing will be completed at each well after rehabilitation and
redrilling.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that new pump test data be provided to Garfield
County once rehabilitation and redrilling of the wells is complete. Also, as this water system will
be regulated by CDPHE, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide
documentation from CDPHE that the water system meets their requirements for domestic water
distribution.
2. Wastewater: The applicant proposes that wastewater generated by residences and other uses
at the PUD will be collected and treated by the Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD) at the
Spring Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The applicant indicated that the existing
Spring Valley WWTF was designed, constructed, and has capacity to treat the wastewater
generated by the full buildout of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. The applicant provided a “will
serve” letter from SVSD for the proposed PUD.
195 W. 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625‐5200
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945‐6614
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote health and prevent disease
Because of the flows treated by the WWTF, the facility will be regulated by CDPHE and not
Garfield County. Staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide
documentation that the Spring Valley WWTF is operating with a current license from CDPHE.
3. Mixed‐Use District: The applicant indicates that there will be a mixed‐use district in the PUD that
will provide amenities and services to the community including a clubhouse/lodge, dining
facilities, retail stores, and convenience services.
Staff recommends a condition of approval that all food distribution uses shall be properly
reviewed, licensed, and inspected by GCPH Consumer Protection staff and any appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies that have jurisdiction over these facilities.
4. Noise: The applicant has presented multiple uses that are likely to generate noise as part of the
PUD, including the multi‐use district, a golf course, and a ski area with snowmaking. The applicant
did not provide a noise study to analyze the potential noise generated by these uses and their
potential effects on residents.
Staff recommends a condition of approval to include a noise study to examine if the noise
generated by proposed uses other than residential at the PUD will exceed CRS 25‐12‐103 Sound
Standards.
5. Radon: Staff recommends that any new buildings constructed utilize radon‐resistant new
construction (RRNC) practices to prevent radon gas exposure, which is the leading cause of lung
cancer among non‐smokers in Colorado. After construction, a radon test should be conducted,
and a fan installed on the pre‐installed passive system if necessary. Free radon test kits are
available at Garfield County Public Health offices in Rifle and Glenwood Springs and at the Clean
Energy Economy for the Region (CLEER) located at the Third Street Center in Carbondale.
Thank you,
Edward R. “Ted” White, P.E.
Environmental Health Specialist III
Garfield County Public Health
2014 Blake Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 665‐6383
twhite@garfield‐county.com
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chris@ mou ntaincross-eng.com
Tuesday, August 15,2023 12:13 PM
Glenn Hartmann
RE: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Glenn
The application materials that were provided were reviewed for completeness. A complete review of the materials was
not performed at this time with the assumption that the final/complete application will be provided for comments in the
future. lf this assumption is incorrect, please let me know and I will conduct a more thorough review. Concerning the
completeness of the information provided:
The Application materials are somewhat vague on the Winter Recreation facilities. A small ski area would
require infrastructure and perhaps ski lifts that would introduce another entity for approvals.
The traffic analysis is thorough however the recommendations for improvements to each of the intersections
was not apparent.
The drainage report doesn't provide an analysis of the post development conditions, i.e. regionaldetention
ponds, preliminary pipe sizes, etc.
The Applicant should provide a preliminary/conceptual drainage plan. This would ideally help set up planned
locations for future stormwater detention treatment/storage areas.
There was not a will serve letter provided from the natural gas company.
The application materials did not mention or include avalanches in the geo-hazard analysis.
The application materials did not evaluate steep slopes or a slope analysis.
The water system layout should have a system analysis/verification of pipe sizes and fire flows. Additionally
verification of tank volumes and locations would be helpful. Upper tank location feasibility for construction and
access should be verified. Additionally the Applicant might consider dual tanks or an alternative location for
redundancy in the upper zone to allow for water service to continue during repairs and maintenance. These
could have impacts on the PUD zoning.
Calloremailanyquestionsorcomments. Letmeknowifthisemailissufficientorifyouwouldpreferthecommentsbe
in a formal letter. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, lnc.
Chris Hale, P.E.
826112 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ph: 970.945.5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
From: Glenn Ha rtmann <gha rtmann@ga rfield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2O23 8:O2PM
To: Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>; jbarnes@carbondaleco.net; Chris Hale <Chris@mountaincross-
eng.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT <brian.killian@state.co.us>; Robin Pitt <robin.pitt@cogs.us>; koliver@carbondalefire.org;
1
Bill Gavette <gavette @ca rbonda lefire.org>
Subject: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to you
for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and local
municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referral and comment period on the
Application (incl ud ing a ny u pdates/additions) wil I occu r.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
970-945-1377 xL57O
Ghartm untV.com
2
From:Dale Stephens
To:Glenn Hartmann
Cc:Philip Berry
Subject:Spring valley
Date:Monday, January 13, 2025 2:14:52 PM
Good afternoon, After our meeting last week I said that I would put to gather a list of issues
on county roads 110,114,and115. After driving these areas with the District Forman hear is
what we came up with.
1. Having accel and deceleration lanes out of the subdivisions coming up
114. ( Paint Brush WY, Pinyon Mesa DR. 110 and 114 Intersection, Auburn
Ridge Ln.and the Colorado Animal Rescue and the easterly entrance into
the Collage.)These turn lanes in my opinion should be addresses sooner
than later.
2. The intersection on 114 and 115 should be converted into a three way stop
intersection or a traffic circle instead of the current intersection.
3. Red Canyon needs to be widened 24 ft. and guardrail installed in the
canyon itself. If widening cant be accomplished this should be a one lane
road down hill traffic only. This would keep construction traffic and the
public going the same direction in the canyon and people not having to
back up with trailers ect. As of now if you meet someone in the canyon one
party is having to move out of the way to get passed each other.
I believe this should all be done in their first phase of construction, And was
wondering about having a bond on the road during the construction phases. Let me know what
you think.
Thanks,Dale
From:Wyatt Keesbery
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Cc:Dale Stephens; Harry Shiles
Subject:RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2024 7:54:27 AM
All,
I will stick with my comments I have expressed in the past. CR 115 is not a viable route, and I would
like to see it used as emergency access only, but that is a BOCC decision. The intersection of CR 114
and Hwy 82 needs fixed, as it currently is a mess. The additional traffic will just create more
congestion issues. There will need to be appropriate stacking and a proper turn lane on CR 114 and
a sufficient acceleration lane installed on HWY 82. CR 114 and CR 115 will also need to have
sufficient turn lanes into the housing areas, and upgrades to the road will need to be addressed as
well.
Thanks
Wyatt
Wyatt KeesberyDirectorGarfield County Road and Bridge0298 CR 333ARifle, CO. 81650wkeesbery@garfield-county.com970-625-8601 office970-309-6073 cell
From: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 10:50 AM
To: Kelly Cave <kcave@garfield-county.com>; Casey Lawrence <clawrence@garfield-county.com>;
Chris Bornholdt <cbornholdt@garcosheriff.com>; Ted White <twhite@garfield-county.com>;
Jannette Whitcomb <jwhitcomb@garfield-county.com>; DJ Ridgeway <djridgeway@garfield-
county.com>; Dan Goin <dagoin@garfield-county.com>; Harry Shiles <hshiles@garfield-
county.com>; Dale Stephens <dstephens@garfield-county.com>; Wyatt Keesbery
<wkeesbery@garfield-county.com>; Levy Burris <lburris@garcosheriff.com>; Scott Aibner
<saibner@garfield-county.com>; Steve Anthony <santhony@garfield-county.com>; Sarah LaRose
<slarose@garfield-county.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT <brian.killian@state.co.us>; Sullivan - DNR,
Megan <megan.sullivan@state.co.us>; kamie.long@colostate.edu; CGS_LUR
<CGS_LUR@mines.edu>; Localreferral - CDPHE, CDPHE <cdphe_localreferral@state.co.us>; Matt
Yamashita <matt.yamashita@state.co.us>; John Groves (John.Groves@State.co.us)
<John.Groves@State.co.us>; Boyatt - DNR, Peter <peter.boyatt@state.co.us>; Canetti - DNR,
Samantha <samantha.canetti@state.co.us>; jake.stanton@state.co.us; SPA-RD-CO <spa-rd-
co@usace.army.mil>; RLSnyder@blm.gov; Larry Sandoval <lsandoval@blm.gov>;
nyla_murphy@fws.gov; jkirschvink@fs.fed.us; joseph.fazzi@usda.gov; jbarnes@carbondaleco.net;
Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>; Bill Gibson <bill.gibson@eaglecounty.us>; Chris
Hale <Chris@mountaincross-eng.com>; Karl Oliver <koliver@carbondalefire.org>; Robin Pitt
<robin.pitt@cogs.us>; acole@rfschools.com; Eric Mangeot <eric.mangeot@lrewater.com>; Rick
Lofaro <rick@roaringfork.org>; gcha@garfieldhousing.com; cheryl@garfieldhousing.com; Cox, Jason
Date: February 13, 2024
To: Glenn Hartmann & Philip Berry, Garfield County Community Development
From: Sarah LaRose & Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegeta�on Management
Re: Vegeta�on Management Comments on Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substan�al
Modifica�on/Amendment, PUAA-05-23-8967
Dear Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Berry,
In regards to the applica�on for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Substan�al Modifica�on/Amendment,
PUAA-05-23-8967, Garfield County Vegeta�on Management would like to request the following of the
applicant at the �me of preliminary planning:
1) Noxious Weed Inventory: An updated Noxious Weed Survey performed by a qualified plant
ecologist or botanist during the growing season.
While the current Weed Management Plan does contain findings from a January 2022 weed
survey, staff has concerns that species present during the ini�al submission period (2009/2010)
may s�ll be present but were not detected at the �me of this survey. Specific weeds of concern
include: absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa),
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), common burdock
(Arctium minus), Dalma�an toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale),
leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian knapweed (Rhaponticum
repens), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris).
2) Rare Plant Survey: A survey performed by a qualified plant ecologist or botanist for Harrington’s
Penstemon (Penstemon harringtonii).
This plant is ranked globally as a G3 and statewide as an S3 by the Colorado Natural Heritage
Program, meaning it is considered “vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted
range (21 to 100 occurrences, or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals)”.
o This plant is found exclusively in Colorado. There are 74 known occurrences in Eagle,
Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Rout, and Summit coun�es. It is found primarily in dry,
sagebrush-dominated communi�es between 6,400 and 9,400 feet in eleva�on. USDA
Forest Service Region 2 has designated P. harringtonii a sensi�ve species; it is also
included on the Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Sensi�ve Species List. It is
not listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, nor is
it currently a candidate for lis�ng.
o If found, the loca�ons of P. harringtonii shall be iden�fied in general terms as they
pertain to building envelopes. In addi�on, an acknowledgment and reference to
Harrington’s penstemon in the covenants may help increase awareness of this plant and
alert property owners of its significance.
3) Prior to ini�a�ng any project or phase of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD, staff will require the
submission of the following:
- Revegeta�on and Disturbance Reclama�on Plan and Cost Es�mate (by a qualified landscape
architect)
- Financial Security to Guarantee Revegeta�on and Reclama�on
- Weed Management and Reclama�on Plan (see required elements below)
Required Elements of Weed Management and Reclama�on Plan:
The purpose of the Weed Management and Reclama�on plan is to ensure that the development does
not result in: (i) erosion and dust genera�on, (ii) the propaga�on of noxious weeds, (iii) the excessive loss
of wildlife habitat and food sources, and (iv) long-term visual eyesores. The financial security allows the
County to perform reclama�on in the event that the developer abandons the project or does not
perform adequate reclama�on.
The Weed Management and Reclama�on Plan must discuss the following:
Sec�on 1: Soil Handling
Must include: (i) the area of land disturbed and volume of soil moved, (ii) provisions for salvaging on-site
topsoil, (iii) a �metable for elimina�ng topsoil and/or aggregate piles, (iv) plan that provides for soil
cover if any disturbances or stockpiles sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more, and (v) erosion
control and dust suppression measures and management.
Sec�on 2: Weed Management Plan
Must include: (i) An inventory and site map that shows County Listed Noxious Weeds and Colorado
Listed A & B Noxious Weeds; (ii) A Weed Management Plan that addresses inventoried weeds in a �mely
and effec�ve manner (note: Garfield County may require the submital of treatment records); and (iii)
persons or en��es responsible for con�nued monitoring and mi�ga�on of any State of Colorado listed
noxious weeds within the area as well as prescribed treatment method(s) and �ming
Sec�on 3: Site Revegeta�on and Reclama�on
Must include: (i) plant material list (be specific, scien�fic and common names required); (ii) plan�ng
schedule (include �ming, methods, and provisions for watering, if applicable); and (iii) a map of the area
that will be disturbed. (Note: Any straw or hay used as mulch or as an erosion control barrier must be
cer�fied as weed-free by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture).
Sec�on 4: Cost Es�mate
Cost es�mate is used to determine the amount of the financial security and must be provided by a
qualified landscape architect. Line items within the cost es�mate must include: (i) mobiliza�on; (ii)
earthmoving; (iii) seed and plan�ng; (iv) mulch, erosion control, and dust suppression; (iv) irriga�on; and
(v) weed management.
The applicant will need to quantify the surface area of disturbance that would need to be reseeded.
These areas would be outside of building envelopes and landscape situations and would be road
shoulders (not the actual road), utility easements, and common areas (that aren’t landscaped). This
information would determine if a revegetation security is necessary. The minimum area threshold of
surface area disturbance in which a security may be required is 1 acre.
Financial Security:
The security may be in the form of a bond, leter of credit, or cash through a Treasurer’s Deposit
Agreement. If the applicant uses a bond for security, it will be their responsibility to make sure that the
bond is kept current and renewed un�l the vegeta�on has been successfully reestablished according to
the Reclama�on Standards sec�on in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Standards at the
date of permit issuance are cited in Sec�ons 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Plan.
Please provide the County Atorney’s Office with bond con�nua�on cer�ficates when there is a renewal.
County Inspec�on and Release of Financial Security: When the project has been completed and
vegeta�on reestablished, the developer (permit holder) calls the County Vegeta�on Manager (970-945-
1377 x 4315) and requests an inspec�on. If the vegeta�on has been successfully established the
Vegeta�on Management Department will bring the security release request to the Board of County
Commissioners for their considera�on.
Glenwood Springs (Area 8) Service Center
0088 Wildlife Way
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.947.2920
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair ∙ Richard Reading, Vice-Chair ∙ Karen Bailey, Secretary ∙ Jessica Beaulieu
Marie Haskett ∙ Tai Jacober ∙ Jack Murphy ∙ Gabriel Otero ∙ Murphy Robinson ∙ James Jay Tutchton ∙ Eden Vardy
9/3/2024
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: Glenn Hartmann, Director, and Philip Berry, Planner III
Re: PUAA-05-23-8967 Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial Modification/Amendment
Dear Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Berry,
Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to further comment on the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial Modification/Amendment. CPW has a statutory
responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado; this responsibility is embraced and
fulfilled through CPW’s mission to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage the wildlife of
Colorado for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the State and its visitors.
CPW will not be a signatory to the current Wildlife Baseline Conditions and Mitigation Plan at
this time, as we cannot agree that the wildlife impacts associated with developing the Spring
Valley Ranch PUD would be addressed were this plan to be implemented.
Communications Summary
CPW, Storied Living, and their representatives have communicated about the Spring Valley
PUD since November 2022. CPW’s February 27, 2024 comment letter submitted to Garfield
County clarifies interactions between these parties during that timeframe. Since the February
27, 2024 comment letter, CPW has communicated with Kelly Colfer regarding the Wildlife
Baseline Conditions and Mitigation Plan (WMP). Mr. Colfer met virtually with CPW
representatives on March 8, 2024, to discuss outstanding concerns. Subsequent email
exchanges occurred. On May 6, 2024, CPW provided Kelly Colfer with a technical feedback
document on the WMP as submitted to CPW on April 11, 2024. This technical feedback
document stated that “CPW cannot ‘agree that the wildlife impacts associated with the
development of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD would be addressed were this plan to be
implemented.’ CPW will not be a signatory to the WMP for this development. CPW will
continue to work with Garfield County to have our requests incorporated via the
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair ∙ Richard Reading, Vice-Chair ∙ Karen Bailey, Secretary ∙ Jessica Beaulieu
Marie Haskett ∙ Jack Murphy ∙ Gabriel Otero ∙ Duke Phillips, IV ∙ James Jay Tutchton ∙ Eden Vardy
county approval process.” On May 8, 2024, Mr. Colfer requested clarification that CPW would
not sign the WMP. CPW’s stance was clearly stated in the March 8, 2024, virtual meeting and
reiterated in the technical feedback document. On May 9, 2024, CPW responded via email
that it was Mr. Colfer’s decision to leave the signatory line in or to remove it; CPW further
clarified the decision to decline signing the WMP. Mr. Colfer replied that the endorsement
and signature sections of the Report would be removed.
The final WMP was delivered to CPW as a courtesy on June 3, 2024 (about a week after the
PUD was resubmitted to Garfield County, per Mr. Colfer’s estimation) with the endorsement
and signature sections still present. CPW has concerns that the final WMP language stating
“By its execution of this document, CPW hereby agrees that the wildlife impacts associated
with the development of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD would be addressed were this plan to
be implemented” misrepresents CPW’s position.
Mitigation Hierarchy Application
The Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposes a .4% transfer tax to fund wildlife habitat improvement
projects. CPW urges Garfield County to require the real estate transfer fee percentage be
0.75% via a Condition of Approval or other regulatory mechanism.
CPW utilizes the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize, and mitigate when analyzing land
use proposals. Avoidance measures leave wildlife habitat functionally intact with no direct,
indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife resources. Minimization efforts reduce
adverse impacts on wildlife resources from anthropogenic disturbance. Still, minimization
efforts will not compensate for the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and the associated
direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources within, and adjacent to, the footprint of a
proposal such as this. Effective mitigation would result in habitat uplift or improvement for
the impacted wildlife populations at spatial and temporal scales equal to, or exceeding the
proposed anthropogenic disturbances. In the immediate area, a 1:1 ratio protecting 5,908 off-
site acres in perpetuity is difficult or impossible to achieve. Few neighboring landscapes offer
the same acreage of quality habitat. The requirement of a meaningful real estate transfer fee
will help minimize, and in some scenarios begin to mitigate, the impacts of this development.
The costs associated with appropriate habitat uplift projects in the immediate area will be
extremely high.
Section 6.4.1.7 of the WMP summarizes avoidance measures but does not distinguish between
direct and indirect impacts on wildlife. Direct impacts occur from the conversion of habitat;
indirect impacts occur from altered wildlife behavior in response to habitat conversions and
changing landscape uses. Indirect impacts to elk and mule deer remain on the portions of
Spring Valley Ranch that are not subject to full habitat conversion.
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair ∙ Richard Reading, Vice-Chair ∙ Karen Bailey, Secretary ∙ Jessica Beaulieu
Marie Haskett ∙ Jack Murphy ∙ Gabriel Otero ∙ Duke Phillips, IV ∙ James Jay Tutchton ∙ Eden Vardy
● The WMP should clarify that the development proposal “Avoid direct impacts to 58% of
the elk production range on Spring Valley Ranch.’
● The WMP should clarify that the development proposal “Avoid direct impacts to 54% of
elk winter range on Spring Valley Ranch.
● Regarding the “Avoid impacts to active raptors nests” statement: CPW did not identify
any minimization measure listed in the WMP for raptors or migratory birds. Avoidance
measures would include conducting annual nesting surveys before commencing
construction or disturbance activities. Requiring meaningful avoidance measures to
avoid impacts on raptors and migratory birds will help Spring Valley Ranch remain in
compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Section 6.4.1.7 of the WMP summarizes the minimization measures, which includes the
statement “CPW Indemnification from Wildlife Damage Claims.” This is not a minimization
measure, as this does not provide any direct benefit to a wildlife population. This is a stand-
alone statement that should be expanded upon elsewhere in the WMP; the context for this
statement is critical and implementation will be subject to relevant state statutes.
Additional Comments & Context
In the technical feedback document provided to Spring Valley Ranch on May 6, 2024, CPW
requested that the WMP prohibit the placement of pet food outside to reduce wildlife and
domestic pet conflicts. This language was not incorporated. CPW also requested that the WMP
acknowledge the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, which contains big game management
statements. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan was not incorporated. The technical
feedback document provided corrections to elk and mule deer statistics, which were updated;
however, the current mule deer statement in section 4.2.2 erroneously references the 2021
post-hunt population estimate and buck-to-doe ratios (this should reference the 2023 post-
hunt population and buck-to-doe ratios).
For a complete understanding of the wildlife resources impacted by this proposal, please
review CPW’s comment letter to Garfield County dated February 27, 2024. This letter
provides critical background information on the impacted wildlife resources and justification
for protecting those resources (including economic value to Garfield County and the State of
Colorado). In summary, the Spring Valley PUD is located within the following High Priority
Habitats1, for which CPW has sound spatial data and science-backed avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation recommendations:
1 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Colorado Parks & Wildlife Recommendations to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Wildlife from
Land Use Development in Colorado. High Priority Habitats. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation-Resources/Energy-
Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair ∙ Richard Reading, Vice-Chair ∙ Karen Bailey, Secretary ∙ Jessica Beaulieu
Marie Haskett ∙ Jack Murphy ∙ Gabriel Otero ∙ Duke Phillips, IV ∙ James Jay Tutchton ∙ Eden Vardy
● Elk winter concentration areas: Defined as that part of the winter range where
densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during
the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10.
● Elk production areas: Defined as that part of the overall range of elk occupied by the
females of the species from May 15 to June 15 for calving. Only known areas are
mapped and this does not include all production areas for the elk Data Analysis Unit.
● Mule deer winter concentration area: Defined as that part of the winter range where
densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during
the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10.
Thank you for considering CPW’s comments on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial
Modification/Amendment application. Please contact the following CPW staff to discuss the
content of this letter.
● Peter Boyatt, District Wildlife Manager, at peter.boyatt@state.co.us
● Matt Yamashita, Area 8 Area Wildlife Manager, at matt.yamashita@state.co.us
● Dani Neumann, NW Region Land Use Specialist, at danielle.neumann@state.co.us
Sincerely,
Matt Yamashita, Area 8 Area Wildlife Manager
Glenwood Springs (Area 8) Service Center
0088 Wildlife Way
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.947.2920
Jeff Davis, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Parks and Wildlife Commission: Dallas May, Chair · Richard Reading, Vice-Chair · Karen Bailey, Secretary · Jessica Beaulieu
Marie Haskett · Jack Murphy · Gabriel Otero · Duke Phillips, IV · Gary T. Skiba · James Jay Tutchton · Eden Vardy
1
February 27, 2024
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Attention: Glenn Hartmann, Director, and Philip Berry, Planner III
Re: PUAA-05-23-8967 Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial Modification/Amendment
Dear Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Berry,
Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Spring Valley
Ranch PUD - Substantial Modification/Amendment. CPW has a statutory responsibility to
manage all wildlife species in Colorado; this responsibility is embraced and fulfilled through
CPW’s mission to protect, preserve, enhance, and manage the wildlife of Colorado for the
use, benefit, and enjoyment of the people of the State and its visitors.
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD is located about 3 miles east of Glenwood Springs and
encompasses 5,908.43 acres. The current application includes 577 residential units, an 18-
hole golf course and short golf course, and numerous non-residential supporting uses and
structures. The current application maintains the approved density of 577 residential units in
a more clustered format than previous iterations. This allows for more open space with 15-20
miles of new public mountain bike trails, wildlife habitat reserves, golf courses, and ski trails.
CPW amends our previous letter dated February 20, 2024, to clarify meetings held with
Storied Living and Kelly Colfer of Western Bionomics to discuss the Spring Valley Ranch PUD.
CPW staff attended a virtual meeting with Kelly Colfer on November 11, 2022, for a
preliminary discussion. This was followed by a meeting with Kelly Colfer, Storied Living
representatives, and CPW staff on December 13, 2022, at the CPW Glenwood Springs Service
Center. The Spring Valley Ranch PUD team explained their plans were still under
2
development. Broad topics of avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse impacts on
wildlife resources were discussed but no specific advice or recommendations were given to
the development team by CPW. It was communicated to CPW that the development team
would request additional meetings with CPW once the application was closer to the final draft
form. One follow-up phone discussion was had with Kelly Colfer in January of 2023 to recap
action items discussed at the December 13, 2022 meeting. During the December 13, 2022,
meeting (and reiterated in the January 2023 phone discussion) CPW offered to further review
the trail design, further discuss a potential agricultural field restoration project, and
anticipated the opportunity to review a draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan. CPW has not had any
communication with the development team since January of 2023. CPW anticipated attending
future meetings with the Spring Valley Ranch PUD development team to proactively discuss
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies that reduce adverse impacts on wildlife
resources. For the reasons clarified below, CPW has concerns with this proposal and finds the
Wildlife Mitigation Plan incomplete; CPW is not ready to sign the Wildlife Mitigation Plan at
this time.
General Comments
The Spring Valley PUD is located within the following High Priority Habitats1, for which CPW
has sound spatial data and science-backed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
recommendations:
● Elk winter concentration areas: Defined as that part of the winter range where
densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during
the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10.
● Elk production areas: Defined as that part of the overall range of elk occupied by the
females of the species from May 15 to June 15 for calving. Only known areas are
mapped and this does not include all production areas for the elk Data Analysis Unit.
● Mule deer winter concentration area: Defined as that part of the winter range where
densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during
the same period used to define winter range in the average 5 winters out of 10.
Additional big game habitats include general elk and mule deer winter range and summer
concentration areas. CPW understands the desire for additional housing and recreational
1 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Colorado Parks & Wildlife Recommendations to Avoid and Minimize
Impacts to Wildlife from Land Use Development in Colorado. High Priority Habitats.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation-Resources/Energy-Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf
3
opportunities but this development will severely fragment and degrade habitat essential for
wildlife. While many of the species listed in this letter will be impacted, one species of
greater concern is the local elk population. Elk are considered an umbrella species whereby
enhancing and protecting elk habitat will indirectly protect other species associated with
those habitats. The elk herd (Data Analysis Unit E-16) in this portion of Game Management
Unit 444 is generally bounded by I-70 to the North, Glenwood Springs to the West, Hwy 82 to
the South, and multiple subdivisions to the East. Spring Valley Ranch represents a significant
portion of the local elk herd’s available range.
Increased habitat fragmentation from development and recreation will concentrate wildlife
into smaller refuges. This increases exposure to disease, causes overutilization of the land
resulting in poor habitat quality, causes unwanted impacts to agricultural lands through long-
term degradation of forage base, and increases damage to human infrastructure. CPW
analyzes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on wildlife populations when commenting
on land use proposals. Direct impacts result from the habitat conversion due to the proposal's
footprint. Indirect impacts on wildlife result from altered behaviors around the footprint of a
proposal. Cumulative impacts result from multiple alterations of baseline habitat conditions
that impact wildlife populations. It is important to consider the cumulative impacts of
multiple projects across this landscape. A single project of this scale will have direct and
indirect impacts, both major and minor, but the cumulative impacts of multiple projects on
the same landscape can have far greater effects on wildlife. Figure 4. Page 13 of the
applicant’s narrative report shows a good illustration highlighting current land uses and
subdivisions. When factoring in the Lake Springs subdivision and ongoing development at the
Elk Springs subdivision, the cumulative effects start to compound.
Elk Herd E-16 is currently managed under the 2013 Frying Pan River Elk Herd E-16 Data
Analysis Unit Plan2. When this plan was being written, the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners submitted a formal letter during the public comment period. The full version
of this letter is located in Appendix 4. The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
requested that CPW manage elk in E-16 at the current population size (plus or minus 20%). In
2023 CPW began updating elk management plans across the Northwest portion of the state,
including the Frying Pan River herd. On November 13, 2023, CPW presented to the Garfield
County Board of County Commissioners during their scheduled board meeting on the proposed
2 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). E-16 Data Analysis Unit Plan 2013 - Colorado Parks and Wildlife . E-
16 Data Analysis Unit Plan 2013.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Elk/E16_FryingPanRiver.pdf
4
elk management objectives for the upcoming 2024 Frying Pan Elk Herd E-16 Data Analysis Unit
Plan. At this time, the County Commissioners verbally indicated support to maintain the elk
population at current numbers. The loss of over 5,908 acres of critical elk habitat from direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts will make managing to maintain the current elk population
challenging.
The Spring Valley Ranch Impacts Analysis document acknowledges that the “E-16 calf ratio
has been declining since 1996 (CPW 2013), a sign that herd productivity is declining and a
concerning metric for wildlife managers.” This statement refers to calf-to-cow ratios, which
is one metric used by CPW to project elk herd health and resilience. For example, 45 calves
to 100 cows indicate a stable, sustainable herd. In the last decade, E-16 has experienced low
calf-to-cow ratios; averaging calf numbers in the low 30’s per 100 cows. The Spring Valley
Ranch Impacts Analysis correctly identifies this trend as a concerning metric for wildlife
managers. Increasing development and recreation continue to contribute to low population
numbers and herd vitality.
Wildlife Mitigation Strategy
CPW utilizes the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimize, and mitigate when analyzing land
use proposals. Avoidance measures leave wildlife habitat functionally intact with no direct,
indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts to wildlife resources. Minimization efforts reduce
adverse impacts on wildlife resources from anthropogenic disturbance. Still, minimization
efforts will not compensate for the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and the associated
direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources within, and adjacent to, the footprint of a
proposal such as this. CPW has noted that 1,100 acres of Wildlife Habitat Reserves are
planned to be maintained and native vegetation left intact. Simply avoiding developing the
Wildlife Habitat Reserves does not constitute mitigation. The language in this plan assumes
that undeveloped portions of Spring Valley Ranch will remain viable, high-quality habitats
that will be utilized by big game in the same manner as pre-development. Effective
mitigation would result in habitat uplift for the impacted wildlife populations at spatial and
temporal scales equal to, or exceeding the proposed anthropogenic disturbances. The
establishment of a Wildlife and Wildfire Trust in the form of a real estate transfer tax has
been presented as a mitigation option. In the immediate area, a 1:1 ratio protecting 5,908
off-site acres in perpetuity is difficult. Few neighboring landscapes offer the same acreage of
quality habitat.
5
The Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposes a 0.2% transfer tax to fund the Wildlife and Wildfire
Trust. CPW suggests increasing the real estate transfer tax percentage to 1.5% with 50% of the
revenue allocated to wildlife habitat improvement projections, permanent wildlife habitat
protection projects, and code enforcement staff to ensure residential compliance with all
wildlife protection codes. The Wildlife and Wildfire Trust charter, which is not currently
drafted, should ensure proper wildlife values are at the forefront of fund distribution.
Advisory groups, including CPW, should be a part of the Wildlife and Wildfire Trust project
evaluations and decisions. CPW urges Garfield County to require meaningful mitigation
measures as a Condition of Approval if this application moves forward.
Spring Valley Ranch Impacts Analysis Comments
Section 6.4.1.2 Wildlife Impact Mitigation, found in the Spring Valley Ranch Impacts Analysis
document, details avoidance measures. The second and third bullets should state “avoid
direct impacts…” These measures do not avoid indirect or cumulative impacts on elk
production and winter ranges. The minimization measures proposed appropriately meet the
definition of “minimization.’ However, the proposed recreation disturbance does not include
comprehensive minimization efforts, as detailed further below in our letter. The first bullet
point under Mitigation describes the “designation of over 1,100 acres of Wildlife Habitat
Reserves.” This designation constitutes an avoidance measure, not a mitigation measure. The
proposed mitigation plan language reads “...the Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall not be amended
without the written consent of the local CPW District Wildlife Manager and Garfield County
Board of County Commissioners.” CPW requests that the Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall not be
adopted without the written consent of the local CPW District Wildlife Manager and Garfield
County Board of County Commissioners.
Appendix B — Wildlife Baseline Conditions & Mitigation Plan Comments
The county application materials represent the first time CPW has viewed the proposed
Wildlife Baseline Conditions & Mitigation Plan, which solicits a CPW signature. CPW finds
Appendix B to be incomplete at this time. Appendix B omits mention of indirect and
cumulative impacts on wildlife resources and focuses exclusively on direct impacts, in
addition to including measures that do not align with CPW’s standard recommendations. As
previously noted in our letter, the language in this plan assumes that undeveloped portions of
Spring Valley Ranch will remain viable, high-quality habitats that will be utilized by big game
in the same manner as pre-development.
6
Section 6. Wildlife Mitigation Objectives 1-9 detail avoidance and minimization measures as
goals. This section should include mitigation goals to fully meet the intent of a Wildlife
Mitigation Plan. The recreation minimization language in this section has the same challenges
as the recreation minimization language in Section 6.4.1.2 of the Impacts Analysis.
Section 7.1.1 lists Designated Open Space as a wildlife impact avoidance measure. It is
unclear to CPW how this Open Space constitutes avoidance of direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts on wildlife resources. Section 7.1.1 states “The Conceptual Plan avoids direct
impacts to 55% of the property by setting aside 3,249 acres as open space.” This appears to
be misleading, as CPW’s interpretation of these numbers from document 1.05 Conceptual
Plan includes the golf course. The conversion of wildlife habitat to a golf course does not
constitute avoidance of wildlife impacts. CPW would appreciate clarification of these
numbers.
Section 7.2.7 Golf Course and Open Space Management states that “an Open Space
Management Plan shall be developed with wildlife habitat preservation and wildfire
management in mind as a primary goal.” CPW did not find the complete proposed Open Space
Management Plan language within the application materials. Section 7.2.7.a) does prohibit all
persons within the PUD from “chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing
wildlife as a part of efforts to force wildlife off golf courses and open space areas during the
winter feeding and spring/summer production seasons.” CPW reminds the applicant that
harassment of wildlife is already illegal at all times pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute §
33-6-128.
Section 7.7.7.b) states that “The owner/operator of the golf course has the right to locally
restrict wildlife from golf course tees, greens, landscaping clumps and other sensitive areas
by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected will not restrict
free movement of wildlife but will be used only in small, isolated, areas to help direct
wildlife and/or people.” This direction risks wildlife entrapment issues. Please adhere to
CPW’s Fencing With Wildlife in Mind3 document when attempting to exclude or direct wildlife.
Regarding the 7.3.1.1 Northern Habitat Reserve elk production timing limitation: The
applicant’s proposed annual closure for elk calving is May 15th through June 15th. CPW
3 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Fencing with Wildlife in Mind.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/FencingWithWildlifeInMind.pdf
7
recommends an annual seasonal timing limitation in elk production from May 15th to June
30th (found in our High Priority Habitat table).
Regarding the 7.3.1.1 Northern Habitat Reserve and 7.3.1.2 Spring Valley Wildlife Habitat
Reserve winter timing limitations: In both sections, the applicant proposes annual winter
range seasonal timing limitations from December 1st to April 15th. CPW recommends an
annual seasonal timing limitation in elk and mule deer winter concentration areas from
December 1st to April 30th (found in our High Priority Habitat table).
Recreation Impacts
The application proposes 15-20 miles of new public mountain bike trails. CPW recommends
that these trails not be approved without additional consideration and adherence to approved
trail planning documents and with input from surrounding public land management agencies.
CPW staff is available to further consult with the applicant to assist with these
recommendations. The 2020 Colorado’s Guide to Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind4
document recommends that trail developers “avoid, to the maximum extent possible,
locating new trails within CPW-mapped elk production areas, migration corridors, severe
winter range, and winter concentration areas.” For mule deer, Planning Trails with Wildlife in
Mind recommends that trail developers “avoid, to the maximum extent possible, locating new
trails within CPW-mapped mule deer migration corridors, severe winter range, and winter
concentration areas.” When avoidance of trail systems in sensitive elk and mule deer habitats
is not possible, the minimization recommendation states “limit trail densities…to less than
one linear mile of trail per square mile on average within elk production areas, migration
corridors, severe winter range, and winter concentration areas.” The same minimization
recommendation is made for mule deer. Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind contains
excellent information on wildlife disturbance and best practices to avoid and minimize
impacts on wildlife populations from human recreation activities along with literature
reviews. This document was developed by CPW staff and a formal Task Force of 20 state,
local, and federal land managers. CPW requests GIS layers of the proposed trails to analyze
the trail system design and interface with wildlife habitats.
4 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). Colorado’s Guide to Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/Planning_Trails_with_Wildlife_in_Mind(without_appendices
).pdf
8
While there is language in the application stating that the applicant intends to implement
seasonal closures on the proposed trails, enforcement of these closures appears problematic
and unenforceable by current law and code enforcement agencies. If these trails are
approved, the HOA should be responsible for hiring code enforcement staff to ensure
compliance with all wildlife protection measures adopted through the application approval
process. Additionally, year-round dog-on-leash restrictions should be enforced. New trail
systems would eventually connect to adjacent United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) properties, expanding the overall range of human activity and
impacts on wildlife. It should be expected that humans will use these trails year round with
the highest volume occurring from late spring through the fall. If human occupancy and elk
movement increase in overlap, it is likely that elk behavior and landscape use will be further
disrupted, causing elk to change their migration patterns spatially and/or temporally. If this is
the case, there is less chance the elk will be able to make spatial distribution changes due to
topography and movement corridors already fragmented by human development. Temporal
changes will likely cause elk to move only at night—further restricting their ability to move
across the landscape and possibly posing an increased risk to humans when crossing roadways.
Residential Conflicts
The Spring Valley PUD is also located within the following habitats, which create human-
wildlife conflict concerns:
● Black bear overall range and fall concentration area.
● Mountain lion overall range.
In addition, many other wildlife species utilize the ranch during various times of the year
including but not limited to wild turkey, coyote, red fox, bobcat, and numerous small
mammals and songbirds. Various raptors and owls utilize the project area as well. Human
food sources associated with residential areas, including garbage, pet food, barbeque grills,
and birdfeeders, can attract black bears, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, skunks, and other
unwanted wildlife. If the Spring Valley PUD is considered for approval, the following
recommendations are made to minimize the potential for human-wildlife conflict:
● All outdoor garbage should be secured in IGBC-certified bear-resistant canisters, if
possible, or stored in a structure that prevents black bear access. No trash should be
placed outside in an unsecured manner, such as in bags or standard canisters.
● No compost piles should be allowed on the property.
9
● Landscaping should not include fruit-bearing trees.
● Prohibit backyard poultry, waterfowl, or beehives and the use of bird feeders.
● Prohibit placement of pet food outside.
● No outdoor, free-roaming cats should be allowed, and dogs should remain on leash at
all times unless a fenced dog park is installed. Roaming domestic animals can engage
with wildlife, leading to potential injuries and mortalities. Both dogs and cats can
chase, harass, and kill wildlife including fawns, calves, small mammals, and songbirds.
● CPW strongly advises that dog runs be strategically placed near homes that allow pets
to encourage use. CPW recommends outlining wildlife-friendly fencing requirements in
any approval documents. Lack of fencing can lead to wildlife harassment by dogs, and
improper fences in residential areas can entangle wildlife. Detailed specifications for
Fencing With Wildlife in Mind can be found on our website.
● Require maintenance of clean grills.
● Lighting should be capped from above to help reduce night-sky light pollution, which
inhibits nocturnal wildlife behavior.
● The HOA should prohibit wildlife feeding via salt blocks or other methods. Except for
bird feeders, any type of feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting
wildlife is illegal. CPW may cite both homeowners and tenants for violations.
● The homeowners and tenants should be individually responsible for abiding by all
wildlife conflict mitigation measures adopted by Garfield County and the HOA.
Economic Importance of Wildlife to Garfield County & Colorado
CPW’s 2019 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan5 (SCORP) is currently in the
process of being updated. SCORP Appendix F6 details the 2017 economic contributions of
outdoor recreation in Colorado, which includes hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching values.
CPW anticipates an increase from the 2017 Appendix F numbers in the update. It should be
noted that wildlife holds intrinsic value in addition to providing the following economic
support to Garfield County. Wildlife recreation supports the following numbers, annually, in
5 Colorado Parks & Wildlife. (n.d.). 2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/2019-SCORP-Report.pdf
6 Colorado Parks & Wildlife . (n.d.). 2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan Appendix F. The 2017 Economic Contributions of Outdoor Recreation in Colorado.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/SCORP-AppendixF-
EconomicContributions.pdf
10
the Northwest Region of Colorado (Garfield County’s land mass represents approximately 13%
of this region):
• 4,701 jobs.
• $173,000,000 in salaries and wages.
• $287,000,000 in GDP contribution.
• $436,000,000 in total economic input.
The above numbers, sourced from the SCORP, are directly acknowledged in Garfield County’s
Comprehensive Plan 2030. Garfield County should consider how this application interfaces
with Section 8 of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 20307. Together, hunting and
fishing contribute $3.5 billion to Colorado’s economy and support more than 25,000 jobs
statewide8. These numbers further emphasize the importance of maintaining viable wildlife
populations for Coloradans.
Thank you for the consideration of CPW’s comments on the Spring Valley Ranch PUD -
Substantial Modification/Amendment application. Please contact the following CPW staff to
discuss the content of this letter.
● Peter Boyatt, District Wildlife Manager, at peter.boyatt@state.co.us
● Matt Yamashita, Area 8 Area Wildlife Manager, at matt.yamashita@state.co.us
● Dani Neumann, NW Region Land Use Specialist, at danielle.neumann@state.co.us
Sincerely,
7 Garfield County. (n.d.). Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. Comprehensive Plan 2030 –
Community Development. https://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/comprehensive-
plan-2030/
8 Colorado Wildlife Council. (2023, November 9). Benefits for All. Benefits for All - Colorado Wildlife
Council.
https://cowildlifecouncil.org/benefits/#:~:text=Together%2C%20hunting%20and%20fishing%20bring,yea
r%2C%20impacting%20all%2064%20counties.
11
Matt Yamashita, Area 8 Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: Peter Boyatt, District Wildlife Manager
Danielle Neumann, Land Use Specialist
Julie Mao, Terrestrial Biologist
From:Emery, Ashley R CIV USARMY CESPA (USA)
To:Glenn Hartmann; Philip Berry
Cc:Crosson, S B (Brad) CIV USARMY CESPA (USA)
Subject:Comment Request Response // City of Glenwood Springs - Spring Valley Ranch PUD // SPA-2024-00048
Date:Thursday, February 8, 2024 1:37:59 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ashley.r.emery@usace.army.mil. Learn why
this is important
Mr. Berry/Mr. Hartmann,
Thank you for providing the opportunity for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
comment on the proposed subject project or activity relative to potential impacts to
aquatic resources. Our initial desktop review of the proposed Spring Valley
Ranch PUD indicates that the footprint of the proposed project intersects with
potential waters of the United States. However, we would need additional
information to provide a definitive determination. If the activity should have the
potential to result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, then the project proponent should work directly with our office to acquire
necessary Department of the Army permits, if applicable, as described in the following
paragraphs.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit from us for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States
may include, but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, wet
meadows, and seeps. To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site, the project
proponent should prepare a delineation of aquatic resources, in accordance with the
applicable standards, including the1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual: Arid West Region
(Version 2.0), and the South Pacific Division’s Map and Drawing Standards and
Guidelines. These standards can be found on our website at:
https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program-and-
Permits/Jurisdiction/.
An aquatic resource delineation should be evaluated prior to developing a range of
alternatives that meet the project purpose. The range of alternatives considered for
this project should include alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands,
streams, or other waters of the United States. In the event it can be clearly
demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to discharging dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, compensatory mitigation may be required.
For more information about our program or to locate a list of consultants that prepare
aquatic resource delineations and permit application documents, please visit our
website at https://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program-and-
Permits. Please refer to identification number SPA-2024-00048 in any
correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact
me by email at ashley.r.emery@usace.army.mil, or telephone at (970) 243-1199 ext.
1010.
Kind Regards,
Ashley Emery
Northwest Colorado Branch
Albuquerque District
US Army Corps of Engineers
Office: 970-243-1199 ext 1010
February 8,2024
SpringValley Ranch PUD Amendment Comments
The staff of the Gtenwood Springs Fire Department and the Gtenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection district
provides the fottowing comments based on referraI by the Garfietd County ptanning board. These
comments are advisory in nature after onty pretiminary discussions and initiat review of ptanned
amendment to the Spring Vattey PUD.
EMS Response:
With the ptanned increase in poputation, the devetopment of recreationat facitities and increase in
traffic, carefuI consideration needs to be given to how EMS, specificatty Advanced Life Support, is
goingto be provided.
With the distance and time for transport to nearest hospitat, a dedicated heticopter [anding zone
shoutd be designated to industry standards for patients with acute needs.
Fire Protection Ptan
A ptan devetoped to show how the fire station is to be staffed with quatif ied and trained personnel
equipped to deatwith fire and EMS needs of the community.
Agreements formed with Garf ietd County Communications and surrounding f ire departments to
operate within the system that is already in ptace. SeveraI automatic aid agreements and mutuaI
aid agreements are being used to atteviate higher cat[ votumes and share resources for incidents
[ocated further away from centraI areas of current f ire districts.
Homes to be buitt to the 2021 lnlernationat Witdtand Urban lnterface Code standards and have
approved NFPA 13D systems instatted.
Access:
- We are satisfied that roads within the subdivision witt be buittto good standard to attowfire
department access with turnaround areas, be maintained and kept free of snow during winter, and
have adequatety spaced fire hydrants.
- There is concern about the quatity of Red Canyon Road and the abitityto handte extra traffic. We
feet that the subdivision should have both Red Canyon and Spring Vattey roads bought up to
Garfietd County Road standards for a two-tane street. Traffic accidents atong these routes also
create a demand for our resources to be used and there is a history of accidents on Red Canyon
due to its narrow conditions.
- A concern about traffic buitd-up at Red Canyon Rd/Hwy 82 and Spring Vattey Road/Hwy 82. Turn
[anes and timed traffic contro[ devices to be buitt to CDOT standarqs for expected vehicte volume.
No current agreement for fire staffing, use of resources and response between the Landis Creek
Metropotitan District and the Gtenwood Springs Fire Department exists. lt is important for the stakeholders
of the Spring Vattey PUD subdivision to review the comments provided and continue to consult with
Operation Levet Chief Officers in the Roaring ForkVattey.
Robin Pitt
Fire Marshat, Gtenwood Springs Fire Department
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dan Cokley < DanC@sgm-inc.com>
Tuesday, August 15,2023 12:25PM
Glenn Hartmann
Wyatt Keesbery
RE: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Glenn
I have not been able to get into the detail of this report. lt's well done, McDowell does good work. A couple
questions I have are as follows
a InternalTrip Reduction - I do not necessarily agree with the methodology used and the reductions applied
but need to get into more detailto technically express that.
o The SHAC reduction for residential mixed use is acceptable at2o/o and 8% (Section 4.3 & Table 4)
o The GarCo vs On-site employee housing reduction should apply only to "work trips", 4 per day.
Which equates to 14% rather than23Yo (Table 4)
o I do not agree with the Non-Residentialtrip reduction in Table 5 and would need to spend more time,
or have a discussion with McDowell. The standard is to use NCHRP #684 lnternal Trip Reduction
spreadsheet. Which would result in lower trip reductions. lt may not affect the final conclusions.
Directional Distribution - Assuming a 95% (CR 114) and 5% (CR 115) is reasonable if CR 115 is to
remain open to public use. lf it will be closed, except to emergency vehicles, if a project of this size is
approved, the assumption should be used that all traffic uses CR 114. Would like input from the County
here. This also probably does not change the conclusions.
CR 114 and CR 115 improvements - Are generally triggered by existing volumes. Would the County like
any input on share percentage or anything else from SGM here?
a
a
Let me know if you would like to discuss and have me formalize a response
Thanks,
Dan
From: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2023 8:36 PM
To: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com>
Subject: FW: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Hi Dan: I intended to include you on this referral. Traffic issues are a key consideration so thanks very much for your
preliminary input. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-L377 xL57O
G ha rtma nn @garfield-countv.com
From: Glenn Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2023 8:02 PM
To: Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>;'jbarnes@carbondaleco.net'<ibarnes@carbondaleco.net>; Chris
Hale <Chris@mountaincross-eng.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT<brian.killian@state.co.us>; Robin Pitt
<robin.pitt@cogs.us>;'koliver@carbondalefire.org'<koliver@carbondalefire.org>; BillGavette
1
<gavette @ca rbo nda lefire.o rg>
Subject: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to you
for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and local
municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referraland comment period on the
Application (including any updates/additions) will occur.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
970-945-1377 xL57O
Gha rtma nn @garfield-countv.com
2
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dan Cokley < DanC@s9m-inc.com >
Monday, July 31,2023 B:45 AM
Glenn Hartmann
RE: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
r
f; Vou don't often get email from danc@sgm-inc.com. Learn why this is important
Hey Glenn, hope you had a good weekend! I will send comments back by 8/16
Thanks,
Dan
From: G lenn Hartma nn <ghartmann @ga rfield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25,2023 8:36 PM
To: Dan Cokley <DanC@sgm-inc.com>
Subject: FW: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Hi Dan: I intended to include you on this referral. Traffic issues are a key consideration so thanks very much for your
preliminary input. Thanks. Glenn.
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-L377 xL57O
G ha rtma n n @ga rfield-countv.com
From: Glenn Hartmann
Sent: Wednesday, July 26,2023 8:02 PM
To: Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>;'jbarnes@carbondaleco.net'<ibarnes@carbondaleco.net>; Chris
Hale <Chris@mountaincross-ens.com>; Brian Killian - CDOT<brian.killian@state.co.us>; Robin Pitt
<robin.pitt@cogs.us>;'koliver@carbondalefire.org'<koliver@carbondalefire.org>; BillGavette
<gavette @ca rbo nda lefire.org>
Subject: Courtesy Referral Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Dear Hannah, Jared, Chris, Brian, Robin and Bill: Attached below is a link to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Application. While we are still doing completeness review of the major application submittals we are referring it to you
for your initial review and preliminary comments. This referral is consistent with the IGA between the County and local
municipalities. Once the Application is determined to be complete another referral and comment period on the
Application (incl ud ing a ny u pdates/add itions) wil I occu r.
This referral will give you the opportunity to identify any areas of the submittals with are deficient or for which you feel
additional Application materials are warranted. The goal is to ensure a thorough and complete review process. ln
addition to any comments if you would like to meet with County Staff and/or the Applicant please let me know and we
can set that up as well.
https://www.d ropbox.com/scl/folTzgrcrot4suge5dafgrzo/h?d l=0&rlkev=0ba3pz5is7rgmaep7nmnv7rq5
1
lf you can provide your initial thoughts by August 16th that timing would be most appreciated. Thanks very much for
your assistance with this major project review.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Principal Planner
97O-945-L377 xL57O
G hartmann @sarfield-cou ntv.com
2
, .i i,.,r1- |
Rooring Fork Trunspoilotion Aulhority
March 25,2024
Garfield County Community Development
ATTN: Glenn Hartmann, Community Development Director
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Referral Comments - PUAA-05-23-8967
Spring Valley Ranch - Substantial PUD Amendment - Storied Development, LLC
Dear Mr. Hartmann
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Substantial PUD Amendment to the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD, as proposed by Storied Development, LLC'
RFTA has reviewed the proposed Substantial PUD Amendment application and has several
comments for your consideration.
Transportation lmpact Studv - While it is noted in the CDOT Transportation lmpact Study
Methodology Form that "Pedestrian, Transit, and Bicycle" impacts were to be analyzed, the
analysis of anticipated transit impacts was not found in the Transportation lmpact Study.
Meanwhile, for pedestrians and bicycles, only existing counts were identified, but an
analysis of impacts was not found.
As this development is to employ 160 employees with only 26 employees living onsite, it is
anticipated that 135 employees will be commuting daily to Spring Valley Ranch. This does
not include non-Spring Valley Ranch employees living in employee housing and commuting
elsewhere or residents living in the remainder of the affordable housing located onsite, none
of whom are anticipated to be Spring Valley Ranch employees and will be commuting to and
from the site daily.
Page I of 5
It is for these reasons that impacts to the transit system and the park and ride at Highway 82
and CR 114 are anticipated. Further, safe bicycle and pedestrian movements at this
intersection are a critical component of the transit and overall transportation system.
RFTA recommends that the Transportation lmpact Study be amended to include an
examination of the anticipated impacts on: 1) the public transit system including both
ridership and infrastructure, 2) the park and ride facility at Highway 82 and CR 114, both
formal and informal, and 3) impacts that the proposed improvements to the Highway 82 and
CR 114 intersection will have on the Rio Grande Corridor, transit stops, and bicycle and
pedestrian safety and accessibility. lt is also recommended that the analysis look at future
and not just existing conditions.
Conflicting Development Aqreement and Phasinq Plan Lanquaqe - The below language is
included in the Phasing section of the Development Agreement, notably that the phases can
be completed in any order. This appears to be in conflict with the New Phasing Plan that
says that certain improvements will be completed at specific Phases (excerpt below the
Phasing section and highlighted). While there may be an assumption that Phase 1 would be
completed first which would include improvements at Hwy 82 and CR 114, the language in
the Phasing section appears to allow the development to potentially start at a different
phase, which would not include Hwy 82 / CR 114 improvements.
Section 2.(b) of the Development Agreement, Page 3:
(tt) Phnsing. Thc prcviously approvcd SVR PUD was anticipatcd to bc
developetl in qr to t\4,enty-one {21) phnses pursuant to the Phasing Plan approved by
Resolution 2017-31 recarded in the l{esartls as Reception No.8!}4961J (tlre "Prior Phasing
Plan")" Phasc I of'thc Prior Pha*ing Plan was prcviously complct*el. Phasc ? of thc Prior
Phasing Plan n,as commencsd in 2022 in accurdance with the Prior Phasing Plan by ihe
constructiott of a neu, 640-fcrot long entrance road inlo the Pruper"ty frorn CR I l5 pursuant to
Carfielcl County Graeling Pernrit No. CRAD-03-22-7397. The Prior Phasing Plan is hereby
supcruedcd, re;:rlacerl arrd restrted with the New lthasing Plan attached to this Agrecnrenl as
Exhibit 2. Phasc 0 on thc Ncw Phasing Plan hirs bccn inscrtcd lo show thal one ( l) clrvcllirrg
unit nlready exists u,ithil the Pasture Zone District dercrihed in the ne$, P1JD Guide. As
sltowtt in the Ncw Plrasing Plan. lhs remaining 576 dwelling units pern:itted pursuant to thc
nerv l'UL! Guicle arc anlicipated to be developeel in up to seven (7) additional Phase* nunrbered
as Phase I tlrrough Phase 7. llorr,rr.,cr, the numbering olthe Phares on the New llhasing l'lan
is {br rcl'crcncc ottly and to intlica{e tlrc numbcr of dwelling units anticipatsd tc bc dcvelopcd
in each such phass. "Ihcre shall he no rcqnircmcnl to clevelup thlr Phases shorvn trn the Nsrv
Phasing Plan in any particular oldcr and thcrc shall be no dcndlines to cither Eorr"nllsnce or
conrplete conslrustiol of any ol'the Phases, lrr :rrldition. rny Phasc ffa1, bc subrlivid*cl :rurlior
rlr'\,,alr\n..rl 1l{.trlrt firrrrl rrl:rt rrr irr urrlr-lllr.rrrrr hrrr'(rrfrrrt r,r rrrrrllirrln l'iryrl nlrrtl'.*''.'....'",|.'..,''.
Page 2 of 5
Exhibit 2 - New Phasing Plan - Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT tr
Nn$ PllA$ING Fl,tN
P.8. I ofl
d.ll hn i*lrdrd:r r.^m.6d.61 n! lh. llnii
It is recommended that the development agreement and phasing plan be clarified to identify
the timeline and sequence of the off-site improvements.
Transit. Rio Grande Corridor. and Park and Ride lmprovements - Should the development
agreement and phasing plan timeline and sequence be clarified to require Phase 1 to occur
first, it is recommended that transit, Rio Grande Corridor, and/or park and ride improvement
be included in Phase 1 - Offsite lmprovement Phasing in the New Phasing Plan.
ln addition, it is recommended that the language be amended in the single asterisk section
(*) of the New Phasing Plan - Off-Site lmprovement Phasing: "* Highway lmprovements
shall be based upon requirements of CDOT Access Permit. Transit, Park and Ride, and/or
Rio Grande Corridor lmprovements shall be determined in collaboration with RFTA and
agreed upon in writing prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan."
A redline of these recommended changes to the New Phasing Plan are below
il|rolrcr.l
IrihaoflnFdmant
irpd
fim0l.ol
CodrfiurNV
ftolrjfl
D{nf,rt
Udlr.!
ttfi$.I
lr|Dloerlr.ntaF.dp0m
'lragti
frilrol
linhrct
ftrtird3|l
Dtrgl|Uolt3
0toO llolpttalfollol
mprNmnB rhJl b! hiluded 6 r ffiPomnt d th6 tlnll
,L! lpplkltlon rtrd drsdltsd SubdMtlff lmpmvomoolr
\B.Gemant tot ,hr& !, ed rhrll bc Qmtlot€d ltlor to tht
!6rdiGg a, llonl ptlt fo, thrs 3 proeidcd lhrt enY .tquirnd
rpprov.lr or 0ctolt! ,E not unt.isrbly wllhhlld bt
:oor.
l! to It 8a to lot lmpiowmnti to lhc,6t€6(tion of Stnle
Itiahwnv 82 tnd Couniy Ro.d tt4.'
'HASS
t 73 ro 89
Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT 2
I{ElV P}IASING PLAN
lhgc I of2
ll
o)(o
(D
5
o
ol
Tlr*rgdlmpourll*nt
n/a
lmprovements shall be included as a component of the Final
Plal appl ication and associated S.rbdivision lmprwements
Agreem€nt for Phase I, and shall be completed prior to the
reording oi Final Plat for Phas€ 3 provided that any required
apprwals or permits are not unreasonably wilhheld by
CDOT-
lmprovements shall be included as a compoflent ot the Final
Pl at appl icati or1 and associated 9rbdivision lmprwemen ts
Agrcement for Phas€ a and shall b€ completed prior to th€
recording of Final Plat for Phase 4 provided that any required
apprwals or permits are not unreasonably withheld by
Garlield county.
lmprov€ments shall be in,cluded as a component of the Final
Plat application and associated fuHivision lmprwements
Agreement for Phase 3, and shall b€ complded prior to the
remrding of Final Plat tor Phase 5 provkled that arv required
appro\rals or permits are not unreasonably wkhheld by
Gartield County.
InFoEmefit Der.riptbn
n/a
HiBhr%,l, Trin sit" Park and Ride aild/or
Rii, Grande Trail lmprwements at the
iilersectioft 0f State HiBhway 8? and
Cc,unty Road 114. I
County Road ll4lmprwements: Fnrm the
int€{seclion ot State Highway32 to the
int€rsection withCounty Road 110 (approx.
1"5 miles). **
County Road lt4 lmprovements: Fmm the
interseciion of County Road 110 to the
eastern access of Colorado Mountain College
{ryprox. 1.4 miles}. *"
' lliBhrya/ Irnproyernents shdl be besad qon Gquirem€nts d CDOT Access tbflnit, Trilsit, Park ad
Ri*:, and/or Rio Grandecorridorlmpre,remente 5hall be d€t€rmined in co'llaboratir.r with RfTA arKJ
ryrred upon in wdtingprior toappovalof the Prdiminary Plen.
I hrprornmentsshCl b based upon the D€litn Stardar& fur rl Off-gE Cqrnty R€d per Sectim 7.2
(Rodnay Oassiffcatiqr & De3iln Stadrdsl r{ the Spd,f, ltalky Remh PUD GuHe.
nal|rolTdrl
Odl:trlnr
byPlnse:
ltol
84 to 102
78 to 96
102 to 124
f,atleof
Iulfnb€rof
Cqffrulty
Houair;
DnIl|
Udtrr:
OtoO
11 to 13
10 to t2
X3 to 15
Rrrte of
ltumberd
Ftct rht
Hltfrritr
Itol
73 !o .19
68 to 84
89 ro 109
nilsEs
pHASE O
PHASf, I
nlASE T
PTIASE 3
' The nrnb,er of Ccrrnrrnity Hous'ru Units shallcompfy wfth the miimun
reqdr€d proportiqlality to Free Mar*et Uoits in *cod'l€e uith the PUD
6uih, The cdrstrrErtfi of Ccrynntnity lbuslrt UriB rnay be aeletiated at
ily po&tt ln the fltcim Plan at the discr€tim of the Detnbp€r, sttlmut
restricdrt rhe allff$ce to sirxrlbtEr.Elyplat r develop the m'&nrn
nrnber d l?€e lrarket lMirg Units as lrdcated for each Phase.
' a DtE means DtellilB Units. The totd fi.lrlber of Dr€nit Ul$ts tff all
Phases shall not exceed 577.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss any of these
recommendations further.
Sincerely,
David Pesnichak, AICP
Mobility Coordinator
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority
1340 Main Street
Garbondale, CO 81623
97O.914.8177 (cell)
dpesnichak@rfta.com
r,,ll
Page 5 of 5
Glenn Hartmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Hannah Klausman <hannah.klausman@cogs.us>
Monday, February 26,2024 8:17 AM
Glenn Hartmann
FW: Spring Valley Ranch Country ReferralSubject:
Glen,
Here are comments for Spring Valley Ranch Referral. Thank you.
Engineering:
Our traff ic engineer reviewed the traffic report and is in general agreement with the f indings of the anatysis. The
intersection at CR 114 and SH 82 is currentty operating poorty, and this devetoper would be responsibte for the
highway improvements by way of the CDOT access permit requirements. An independent review of the traffic
anatysis was done by Dan Coktey at SGM, and he brought up the probtematic and unsafe Red Canyon (CR 1 15)
route to the vattey ftoor. McDowett Engineering originatty sent 5o/o ol project traff ic up and down CR 1 15 but
adjusted this so that att project traffic used Spring Val,l.ey Road to SH 82. This shift resulted in "No net changes in
infrastructure recommendations" at the highway. Although the study does not mention South Bridge, the point is
moot if att project traffic uses CR 1141o access the site.
Com munity Development:
The Community Development department is in general support of the expanded open space and clustered development
concepts. These are concepts supported by Section 070.040.020 Sensitive Area Protection of the municipal code which
allows clustering when it better attains objectives of providing more open space, preserving existing vegetation, and
preserving sensitive environmental areas, while mitigating any significant adverse impact on adjacent properties with
screening/landscaping and other design features to buffer and protect from the clustered areas.
The City supports the Housing Mitigation Plan with units being constructed onsite by the developer.
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Director, Economic and Community Development
City of Glenwood Springs
101W. Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.384.6407 (ol 97 o.3t9-6259 (c)
City Hall is closed on Fridays. Calls and emails will be returned on the following Monday.
From: Glenn Hartma nn <ghartmann @earfield-countv'com>
Sent: Friday, January 79,202410:50 AM
Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
This sender is trusted
1
Referral Agencies:
Attached is a Referral Request for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. lt is a substantial amendment that will be
reviewed through future public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. lt requests
amendments including a new PUD Guide, PUD Plan Map with amended lot/zone district configurations/layout and
provides updated technical information. The project includes 577 dwelling units on approximately 5908 acres. The
development review history for this property dates back to 2OO8/2O10 and earlier. A link to access the Application
electronically is included in the referral request and provided below:
Please provide your comments directly to both our emails: ghartmann@sarfield-countv.com and pberrv@garfield-
countv.com
We're requesting comments bV 2/9/2a if possible but based on the size of the Application we're extending the referral
time period for two additional weeks to 2/23/24. Based on the size and complexity of the Application we anticipate staff
follow-up with referral agencies and will accommodate your needs for further extensions of the review period as
necessary. Please note that the application while determined to be complete for review has not been scheduled for public
hearings to allow for a complete and thorough review of referral comments.
Your review and comments are a very important part of our review process. Please contact us if you have any questions
or difficulty in accessing the application files. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hartmann
Director
970-945-1377 x7570
2
G ha rtma n n (oga rfield-cou ntv.co m
Hannah Klausman, AICP
Director, Economic and Community Development
City of Glenwood Springs
101W. Eighth Sreet
Glenwood Springs, CO 81501
970.384.5407 (o) 970.319-6269 (c)
City Hall is closed on Fridays. Calls and emails will be returned on the following Monday.
3
Co m munityr Development
Troy Hangen, Senior Planner
970-328-8749
troy. hangen @eagl ecou nty. us
www.eaglecounty.us
EAGLE COUNTY
February 20,2024
Ga rfield Cou nty Com mu nity Development Depa rtment
Attn: Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Planner lll
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via Email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
pbe rry@ga rfi e ld-co u nty.co m
Re: IAR-00941 1-2024 - Spring Valley Ranch PUD - Substantial Modiflcation/Amendment
Dear Community Development Department:
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of the planning process of the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD in Garfield County. Please consider the following comments from
Eagle County Departments:
Planning Comments:
After reviewing the Application, the data included draws parallels to many goals and
policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (ECCP). Some of these are:
3.1 .3 Community I nvolvement
-The value of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan should be understood and the plan
should be appropriately adhered to.
3.1.4 Governance
-Cooperative planning solutions should be encouraged across jurisdictional boundaries by
promoting intergovernmenta I commu n ication and coord i nation.
3.2.4 Development
-Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located
within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers.
3.4 Housing
- Housing needs are clearly identified, and housing types are appropriately balanced to
meet all community needs, appropriately located to reduce long distance commutes, and
appropriately managed to assure long term affordability for Eagle County's workforce.
3.4.5 Development Stakes
-Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle Coun!/s workforce housing
needs.
3.6 Water Resources
-Sufficient domestic water is available to all developed areas so long as requirements for
maintaining healthy natural riparian and aquatic ecosystems are being met.
1
500 Broadway, P.O. Box 179,Eagle, Colorado 81631
The overall amount of research and information for the Application was extensive and
thorough. lt will bring much needed housing to the County. Staff supports the updated
design incorporating the same density in a more cluster-like design using less
infrastructure. More open space and including Wildlife Habitat will be beneficial.
Engineering Comments:
Open Space/Natural Resources Comments:
Sincerely,
Troy Hangen
Senior Planner
Cc:Trent Hyatt, Deputy Community Development Director
Ben Gerdes, P.E., County Engineer
File
2
Glenn Hartmann
Thank you for contacting the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). CDPHE's general
comments are available here. CDPHE's oil and gas related comments are available here. We will continue to review this
referral to determine whether additional comments are necessary. lf additional comments are necessary, we will submit
them by the referral deadline.
From:
Sent:
lo:
Subject:
COLORADO
Department of Publtc
Health & Envirorrment
cdphe localreferral@state.co.us I cotorado.eov/cdphe
Localreferral - C D PH E, CDPH E < cdphe-localreferral @state.co.us >
Friday, January 19,202410:52 AM
Glenn Hartmann
Re: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request
rewl
gs
Thank you for contacting the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE). Please note that the following requirements and recommendations apply to many
but not all projects referred by local governments. Also, they are not intended to be an
exhaustive list and it is ultimately the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all
applicable rules and regulations. CDPHE’s failure to respond to a referral should not be
construed as a favorable response.
Hazardous and Solid Waste
The applicant must comply with all applicable hazardous and solid waste rules and
regulations.
Hazardous waste regulations are available here:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/hwregs.
Solid waste regulations are available here:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/swregs.
Applicable requirements may include, but are not limited to, properly characterizing all
wastes generated from this project and ensuring they are properly managed and disposed of
in accordance with Colorado’s solid and hazardous waste regulations.
If this proposed project processes, reclaims, sorts, or recycles recyclable materials generated
from industrial operations (including, but not limited to construction and demolition debris
and other recyclable materials), then it must register as an industrial recycling facility in
accordance with Section 8 of the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations. The industrial recycling
registration form is available here:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/sw-recycling-forms-apps.
If you have any questions regarding hazardous and/or solid waste, please contact CDPHE’s
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (HMWMD) by emailing
comments.hmwmd@state.co.us or calling 303-692-3320.
Water Quality
The applicant must comply with all applicable water quality rules and regulations.
The Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) administers regulatory programs that are generally
designed to help protect both Colorado’s natural water bodies (the clean water program) and
built drinking water systems.Applicants must comply with all applicable water quality rules
and regulations relating to both clean water and drinking water. All water quality regulations
are available here:
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/water-quality-control-commission-regulations.
Clean Water Requirements
Stormwater
Applicable clean water requirements may include, but are not limited to, obtaining a
stormwater discharge permit if construction activities disturb one acre or more of land or if
they are part of a larger common plan of development that will disturb one or more acres of
land. In determining the area of construction disturbance, WQCD looks at the entire plan,
including disturbances associated with utilities, pipelines or roads constructed to serve the
facility.
Please use the Colorado Environmental Online Services (CEOS) to apply for new construction
stormwater discharge permits, modify or terminate existing permits and change permit
contacts.
For CEOS support please see the following WQCD website:
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/cor400000-stormwater-discharge
or contact:
Email: cdphe_ceos_support@state.co.us or cdphe_wqcd_permits@state.co.us
CEOS Phone: 303-691-7919
Permits Phone: 303-692-3517
Domestic Wastewater
Some projects with wastewater collection may have domestic wastewater treatment works
(i.e., treatment plant, interceptor sewer, or lift station) with a design capacity to receive
greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) and are subject to state-wide site location, design,
and permitting requirements implemented by the Water Quality Control Division. State review
and approval of the site location application and design is required by the Colorado Water
Quality Control Act (Act), Section 25-8-702, C.R.S. which states in part that:
“No person shall commence the construction of any domestic wastewater treatment
works or the enlargement of the capacity of an existing domestic wastewater
treatment works, unless the site location and the design for the construction or
expansion have been approved by the division.”
State review may also be necessary for projects with multiple on-site wastewater treatment
systems (OWTS) on a single property, unless the OWTS meet the requirements of division’s
“Site Application Policy 6: Multiple On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems” (Policy 6).
If applicable, the project would need to meet all applicable regulatory requirements
including, but not limited to, site location and design review, discharge permitting, having a
certified operator; and routine monitoring and reporting. For questions regarding domestic
wastewater regulation applicability or other assistance and resources, visit these websites:
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/design
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/clean-water-permitting-sectors
Drinking Water Requirements
The definition of a public water system is self-implementing. It is the responsibility of all
water systems in Colorado to assess whether their system is a public water system and to
comply with the regulations accordingly. There is not a notification process whereby a system
only becomes a public water system if the Department notifies that system. A system
becomes subject to regulation as a public water system at the point the system begins
operating a system meeting the definition of a public water system under Regulation 11.
Some projects may also need to address drinking water regulations if the proposed project
meets the definition of a “Public Water System” per the Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (Regulation 11):
A Public Water System means a system for the provision to the public of water for
human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system
has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25
individuals daily at least 60 days per year. A public water system is either a
community water system or a non-community water system. Such term does not
include any special irrigation district. Such term includes:
(a) Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control
of the supplier of such system and used primarily in connection with such
system.
(b) Any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control,
which are used primarily in connection with such system.
If applicable, the project would need to meet all applicable requirements of Regulation 11
including, but not limited to, design review and approval; technical, managerial and financial
review and approval; having a certified operator; and routine monitoring and reporting. If it is
determined that your facility meets the definition of a public water system please submit a
drinking water inventory update form to the department. For questions regarding drinking
water regulation applicability or other assistance and resources, visit these websites:
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/drinking-water
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dwtrain
If you have any other questions regarding either clean or drinking water quality, please
contact CDPHE’s WQCD by emailing cdphe.commentswqcd@state.co.us or calling
303-692-3500.
Air Quality
The applicant must comply with all relevant state and federal air quality rules and
regulations. Air quality regulations are available here:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs.
Air Pollutant Emissions Notices (APENs) and Permits
Applicable requirements may include, but are not limited to, reporting emissions to the Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD) by completing an APEN. An APEN is a two in one form for
reporting air emissions and obtaining an air permit, if a permit will be required. While only
businesses that exceed the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) reporting thresholds are
required to report their emissions, all businesses - regardless of emission amount - must
always comply with applicable AQCC regulations.
In general, an APEN is required when uncontrolled actual emissions for an emission point or
group of emission points exceed the following defined emission thresholds:
Table 1
APEN Thresholds
Pollutant Category UNCONTROLLED ACTUAL EMISSIONS
Attainment Area Non-attainment Area
Criteria Pollutant 2 tons per year 1 ton per year
Lead 100 pounds per year 100 pounds per year
Non-Criteria Pollutant 250 pounds per year 250 pounds per year
Uncontrolled actual emissions do not take into account any pollution control equipment that
may exist. A map of the Denver Metropolitan Ozone Non-attainment area can be found on the
following website:http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/ss_map_wm.aspx.
In addition to these reporting thresholds, a Land Development APEN (Form APCD-223) may be
required for land development. Under Colorado air quality
regulations, land development refers to all land clearing activities, including but not limited
to land preparation such as excavating or grading, for residential, commercial or
industrial development. Land development activities release fugitive dust, a pollutant
regulation by APCD. Small land development activities are not subject to the same reporting
and permitting requirements as large land activities. Specifically, land development activities
that are less than 25 contiguous acres and less than 6 months in duration do not need to
report air emissions to APCD.
It is important to note that even if a permit is not required, fugitive dust control measures
included the Land Development APEN Form APCD-223 must be followed at the site. Fugitive
dust control techniques commonly included in the plan are included in the table below.
Control Options for Unpaved Roadways
Watering Use of chemical stabilizer
Paving Controlling vehicle speed
Graveling
Control Options for Mud and Dirt Carry-Out Onto Paved Surfaces
Gravel entry ways Washing vehicle wheels
Covering the load Not overfilling trucks
Control Options for Disturbed Areas
Watering Application of a chemical stabilizer
Revegetation Controlling vehicle speed
Compaction Furrowing the soil
Wind Breaks Minimizing the areas of disturbance
Synthetic or Natural Cover for Slopes
Additional information on APENs and air permits can be found on the following website:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/air/do-you-need-an-apen. This site explains the
process to obtain APENs and air quality permits, as well as information on calculating
emissions, exemptions, and additional requirements. You may also view AQCC Regulation
Number 3 at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs for the complete regulatory
language.
If you have any questions regarding Colorado’s APEN or air permitting requirements or are
unsure whether your business operations emit air pollutants, please call the Small Business
Assistance Program (SBAP) at 303- 692-3175 or 303-692-3148.
Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint
In Colorado there are regulations regarding the appropriate removal and handling of asbestos
and lead-based paint as part of a demolition, renovation, or remodeling project. These
regulations are presented in AQCC Number 8 (asbestos) and Number 19 (lead-based paint)
which can be found on the following website:https://www.colorado.gov/cdphe/aqcc-regs.
These regulations may require the use of, or inspection by, companies or individuals that are
certified to inspect or remove these hazards prior to renovation or demolition. APCD must
also be notified of abatement or demolition activities prior to beginning any work in the case
of asbestos. For additional guidance on these regulations and lists of certified companies and
individuals please visit the following website for asbestos:
https://www.colorado.gov/cdphe/categories/services-and-information/environment/asbestos
and the following website for lead-based paint:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/categories/services-and-information/lead.
If you have any questions about Colorado’s asbestos and lead-based paint regulations or are
unsure whether you are subject to them please call the Indoor Environment Program at
303-692-3100.
If you have more general questions about air quality, please contact CDPHE’s APCD by
emailing cdphe.commentsapcd@state.co.us or calling 303-692-3100.
Environmental Justice and Health Equity
CDPHE is dedicated to promoting and protecting the health and environment for all
Coloradans. As part of those efforts, we strive to achieve health equity and environmental
justice.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin or income.Environmental justice recognizes that
all people have a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, participate freely in
decisions that affect their environment, live free of dangerous levels of toxic
pollution, experience equal protection of environmental policies, and share the
benefits of a prosperous and vibrant pollution-free economy.
HEALTH EQUITY is when all people, regardless of who they are or what they believe, have the
opportunity to attain their full health potential. Achieving health equity requires valuing all
people equally with focused and ongoing efforts to address inequalities.
The Environmental Justice Act (HB21-1266) builds upon these efforts by declaring a statewide
policy to advance environmental justice, defining disproportionately impacted communities,
and creating an Environmental Justice Action Task Force, Environmental Justice
Ombudsperson, and Environmental Justice Advisory Board. The Environmental Justice Act also
directs the Air Quality Control Commission to promulgate certain rules to reduce emissions in
disproportionately impacted communities, and to revise its approach to permitting actions in
disproportionately impacted communities. The Environmental Justice Act further requires
the Air Quality Control Commission to conduct enhanced outreach in disproportionately
impacted communities for rulemakings and contested permitting actions.
The Environmental Justice Act’s definition of disproportionately impacted communities
includes low-income communities, communities of color, and housing cost-burdened
communities, as well as communities that experience cumulative impacts and with a history
of environmental racism. CDPHE’s Climate Equity Data Viewer can be used to identify census
block groups that meet those three criteria.
CDPHE notes that certain projects have potential to impact communities of color and
low-income communities that are already disproportionately impacted by cumulative impacts
across environmental media and challenges outside the environmental context. It is our strong
recommendation that your organization consider the potential for disproportionate
environmental and health impacts on specific communities within the project scope and take
action to avoid, mitigate, and minimize those impacts.
To ensure the meaningful involvement of disproportionately impacted communities, we
recommend that you interface directly with the communities in the project area to better
understand community perspectives on the project to receive feedback on how it may impact
them during development and construction as well as after completion. This feedback should
be taken into account wherever possible, and reflected in changes made to the project plan
to implement the feedback.
Additionally, to ensure the fair treatment of disproportionately impacted communities, we
recommend that you consider substantive measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts
to disproportionately impacted communities. This may include considering alternative facility
siting locations, using best management practices to reduce impacts to air, water, soil, noise,
light, or odor, or offsetting impacts by reducing impacts from other nearby facilities as
appropriate.
We have included some general resources for your reference.
Resources:
CDPHE Environmental Justice Website
CDPHE’s Health Equity Resources
CDPHE’s “Sweet” Tools to Advance Equity
EPA’s Environmental Justice and NEPA Resources
320 Main St. Suite 204 | Carbondale, CO 81623 | 970.963.8440 | avlt@avlt.org | Page 1 of 3
April 4, 2024
Glenn Hartmann, Director
Philip Berry, Senior Planner
Garfield County Community Development
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Via email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com, pberry@garfield-county.com
RE: AVLT Referral Comments, 2023 Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment, PUAA-05-23-8967
Dear Glenn and Phillip,
Thank you for requesting AVLT’s referral comments for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. As
you are aware, the Spring Valley Ranch PUD is immediately adjacent to AVLT’s Rivendell Farms
Conservation Easement (also known as the Lake Springs Ranch Conservation Easement). Initially platted
for development, Rivendell Farms has been a conservation success story long in the making—starting with
the Berkeley family’s 2004 donation of a 40-acre conservation easement on the property (Garfield County
reception #665794). Between 2004 and 2019, the Berkeley family gradually increased the size of the
conservation easement to 254 acres through phased easements, which are bound together by one final ruling
document, the Fifth Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement in Gross , donated to AVLT on
September 20, 2019 and recorded in Garfield County at reception number 925748 (the “Easement”). Today,
Rivendell Farms is home to a thriving agricultural operation and important wetland and sagebrush shrubland
habitat that will be forever protected for the benefit of all Coloradans.
The Easement is intended to protect specific Conservation Values, including ;
“relatively natural habitat including wetland and wildlife values and open space (including agricultural lands)
(collectively, ‘Conservation Values’) of importance to the Landowner, the Trust, the people of Garfield County,
and the people of the State of Colorado that are worthy or preservation” (pg. 3).
It continues to state;
“in particular, the Property consists of irrigated agricultural land, sagebrush shrublands, ponds and wetlands in
an otherwise semi-arid upland zone. The wetlands provide important wildlife habitat for numerous species of
birds, waterfowl, and small mammal s. The Property contains a community of sagebrush, a threatened habitat
type important to big game as well as small animals and bird species...” “The Property contains wetlands,
riparian areas, and several other important habitat types that provide food, shelter, winter habitat, and migration
routes for several wildlife species including elk, mule deer, black bear, turkey, bat, and bald eagles. The wetland
and riparian areas are especially important to many bird species, including the Canada Geese, Killdeer, Redwing
blackbirds, and Mallard, America Wigeon, Cinnamon Teal, and Ring Neck ducks” (pg. 3).
While AVLT does not hold conservation easements on any of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD parcels and
does not have authority to directly approve or deny any portions of the proposal, we are deeply concerned
about the impact that a development of this scale will have on the wildlife that our ad jacent easement aims
to protect.
320 Main St. Suite 204 | Carbondale, CO 81623 | 970.963.8440 | avlt@avlt.org | Page 2 of 3
Spring Valley Ranch and the surrounding area support a diverse ecosystem, containing a matrix of oak-
mixed montane shrublands, sagebrush shrublands, aspen forests, and riparian forests, shrublands and
wetlands. These natural communities provide the foundation of essential habitat for a diversity of native
flora and fauna—some rare—that provide wonderful intrinsic and economic benefit to our state and region.
Of particular concern is the proposal’s likely impact to critical deer and elk habitat. The entire development
proposal is located in winter range for deer and elk, with a mule deer winter concentration area extending
through the center of the property, and an elk winter concentration area covering the southwestern portion
of the property, immediately adjacent to AVLT’s protected Rivendell Farms. The southeastern corner of the
development is located in severe winter range for elk, and nearly half of the property to the north occupies a
critical elk production and calving area. The entire property is also known as an important wildlife
migration route, connecting higher elevation summer range with critical winter habitat, water sources, and
calving grounds in the lower grounds of the Spring Valley drainage.
The Spring Valley Ranch Impact Analysis states that the Frying Pan River Elk Herd using the property has
been declining since 1996, which is "a concerning metric for wildlife managers" (Impact Analysis, pg 16-
18). The same collection of natural communities that are found on the adjacent protected Rivendell Farms
Conservation Easement cover much of the Spring Valley Ranch PUD. According to the Impact Analysis,
gambel oak and sagebrush shrubland communities “provide important winter forage opportunities for elk.
These communities and aspen stands provide forage during the remainder of the year as well” (pg. 18).
AVLT is concerned that, once fully developed, displaced deer and elk herds will not be able to survive the
loss of critical winter and calving habitat and may additionally over-rely on and overgraze adjacent lands,
such as AVLT’s adjacent Rivendell Farms Conservation Easement.
The Impact Analysis and CPW data also show the property to be winter hunting grounds for mountain lion
and a known black bear fall concentration area. According to the Impact Analysis, "annual bear mortality in
B-11 has been increasing over the past 2 decades" (pg. 18). Fall habitat areas such as Spring Valley Ranch
provide critical feed and forage for black bears preparing for winter hibernation. Developing 6,000 acres at
such a massive scale is certain to increase local black bear mortality rates, especially in harsher winters.
One of the stated conservation purposes of the Rivendell Farms Conservation Easement is its alignment
with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030. The Easement states ;
“...the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 (adopted November 10, 2010) (the 'Comprehensive Plan')
identifies the loss of agricultural lands and rural character as a significant issue for county residents, along with
environmental impacts to sensitive ecosystems, including wildlife habitat and important visual corridors. Section
6 of the Comprehensive Plan - Agriculture, states 'Garfield County has preserved rural character and agricultural
heritage by encouraging the retention of important agricultural lands, working farms and ranches. . . . The
county has encouraged conservation of lands that protect important wildlife corridors, natural habitats,
important viewsheds and other critical open space.' The goals of Section 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which
are supported by policies, are to: 1) Promote the continuation and expansion of agricultural uses; 2) Preserve a
significant rural character in the county; and 3) Preserve scenic and visual corridors in the county. To that end
the county encourages uses of land trusts and conservation easements for protecting agriculture. The goals and
policies of Section 8 of the Comprehensive Plan— Natural Resources, also state that the County shall ‘ensure
that natural, scenic, ecological, and critical wildlife habitat resources are protected and/or impacts mitigated,’
and that the County ‘will encourage the protection of watersh eds, flood plains, and riparian areas.’ This
Easement grant will further this policy's objective by conserving agricultural lands and preserving some of the
rural character in our community” (pg. 4).
320 Main St. Suite 204 | Carbondale, CO 81623 | 970.963.8440 | avlt@avlt.org | Page 3 of 3
AVLT is not in a position to comment on any of the specifics of the development proposal, but we can
certainly share information about the ecosystems and wildlife values that will be impacted by development
of this scale. Although the clustered development proposal is certainly less impactful than the property’s
existing entitlements, it is important to recognize that the proposed development will further fragment and
disrupt entire intact ecosystems that currently provide quiet, high-quality habitat. This will likely have a
devastating impact on local wildlife and the overall health of Spring Valley. A development proposal of this
nature and scale, including the existing entitlements, is simply not appropriate for an area so delicate, so
critical to wildlife, and so greatly removed from existing developed areas, infrastructure, and services. The
proposal is likely to impact ranching operations and habitat quality on an adjacent AVLT conservation
easement, and on a larger scale is at odds with AVLT’s mission and the goals established by our strategic
conservation plan to permanently protect high quality and rapidly diminishing ranchland and natural habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me
below with any questions.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Bud Tymczyszyn (tim-chiz-in)
Stewardship Director
Aspen Valley Land Trust
bud@avlt.org
970.456.1915 (cell)
From:Killian - CDOT, Brian
To:Glenn Hartmann
Cc:Jeff Butterworth; JON FREDERICKS; Kandis Aggen - CDOT; Karthik Vishwamitra - CDOT; Philip Berry; Edgar Palacios;
Michaela Craig; Greg Schroeder
Subject:Re: Spring Valley Ranch - CDOT Follow-up
Date:Thursday, May 9, 2024 10:40:53 AM
Attachments:image001.jpg
Glenn,
Per our conversation on Wednesday, please see CDOT permit requirements below for the
Spring Valley Ranch development off Hwy 82.
Permit requirements for County Road 114:
Permit 1: CR 114
Location: 082A MP 6.649L
Land Use: County road (CR 114, aka Spring Valley Rd)
DHV: 1361 vph
Access Configuration: Full movement
The applicant shall construct the following improvements per the standards of the State
Highway Access Code:
- Construct dual southbound left turn deceleration lanes. This shall also involve the
construction of two receiving lanes for eastbound CR 114.
- Upgrade the existing signal to allow for the dual left turn lanes.
- Extend the existing northbound right turn deceleration lane.
- Extend the existing westbound-to-northbound right turn acceleration lane.
Permit requirements for County Road 115:
Permit 2: CR 115
Location: 082A MP 3.688L
Land Use: County road (CR 115, aka Red Canyon Rd)
DHV: 155 vph
Access Configuration: Full movement
The applicant shall construct the following improvements per the standards of the State
Highway Access Code:
- Construct a northbound right turn deceleration lane.
County Road 110 was not evaluated by the developers engineer and the TIS doesn't
provide any information about that road.
These requirements are based on the TIS received as part of the CDOT access permit
application package. If any changes are made to the development, the requirements
above and TIS may change.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Brian KillianRegion 3 Access Program Manager
Traffic & Safety
P 970-683-6284 | C 970-210-1101 | F 970-683-6290
222 S. 6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501
Matrix Design Group, Inc.
707 17th Street, Suite 3150
Denver, CO 80202
O 303.572.0200
F 303.572.0202
matrixdesigngroup.com
Anniston, AL | Atlanta, GA | Colorado Springs, CO | Denver, CO | Niceville, FL | Parsons, KS | Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento, CA | Tamuning, GUAM | Texarkana, TX | Washington, DC
September 6, 2024
Glenn Hartmann
Director of Community Development
Garfield County
108 8th St, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: SPRING VALLEY RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD MODIFICATION
Review of Water Related Issues
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
Matrix Design Group, Inc, (Matrix), is pleased to assist Garfield County with the development
review for Spring Valley Ranch. The development review was limited to peer review of
application submittals and technical reports related to:
• Water Rights Issues
• Water Supply Plans
• Aquifer Recharge Studies
• Other related water supply and water impact topics/issues including irrigation
considerations.
The comments in this letter are based upon a review of the documents listed below:
1. Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Narrative Report, dated May 2024 by Land West.
2. Spring Valley Ranch PUD Vicinity Map, by Land West.
3. Spring Valley Ranch Conceptual Plan 2024, by Storied Development.
4. Spring Valley Ranch Impact Analysis, dated May 28, 2024 by Western Bionomics, Inc.
5. Spring Valley Ranch PUD Existing Drainage and Flood Hazard Report, dated January
18, 2023 by Roaring Fork Engineering.
6. PUD Plan Map Spring Valley Ranch PUD, dated May 23, 2024 by Peak Surveying, Inc.
7. Water Supply for Spring Valley Ranch PUD –PUD Amendment Application, dated
January 31, 2023 by Water Law.
8. Water Supply and Distribution Plan Spring Valley Ranch PUD, dated February 2, 2023
by Roaring Fork Engineering.
9. Spring Valley Ranch Aquifer Sustainability Study, dated April 11, 2024 by Colorado
River Engineering, Inc.
10. Spring Valley Ranch: Responses to Referral Comments for PUD Amendment
Application, dated May 31, 2024 by Land West.
September 6, 2024
Page 2
Water Resources Comments, PUD Level
1. Limited Physical Water Supply – The key water issue is whether there is a long-term,
sustainable supply of water to serve all of the proposed water needs of the
development. It is understood that this is only at the PUD level, but additional work is
warranted to better define the sustainable yield of the groundwater aquifer. The
proposed Spring Valley Ranch development is located on a mountain mesa high above
the Colorado River and Roaring Fork River and is totally dependent upon groundwater
recharged by direct precipitation for potable water. The site landscape is very dry with
very little surface water, except for the relatively small flow in Landis Creek. The
adjacent Consolidated Reservoir has been observed to have very little water in storage
during most of the year. The concern is whether there is enough physical water to
sustain a 577 dwelling unit development with outdoor irrigation, irrigated 100-acre golf
course and ski area with snowmaking. The PUD reports indicate an abundance of
water – roughly 3 times what is needed on an annual basis. The tributary watershed is
relatively small and therefore there are few creeks and streams on the property. Even
though the development proposes to use less water than falls on the land as
precipitation, the water may be tied up and trapped in the soil. Relatively shallow
groundwater wells cannot recover 100% of the water that infiltrates into the ground. The
zone of influence of the wells is relatively tiny compared to the overall land area. The
aquifer analysis essentially considers the soil to be similar to a bathtub where
precipitation is trapped and stored, which may or may not be the case. The amount of
groundwater lost to the Colorado River and Roaring Fork River is unknown. More work
is needed to characterize the aquifer. The assumption in the analysis is that the aquifer
is infinite, but can the use of groundwater as proposed be sustained? More information
is needed on the underlying geology to better define the aquifer. Further aquifer
characterization by a Geohydrologist or similar professional is recommended to
understand the movement and characterization of groundwater.
2. Concern of Overstating Sustainable Well Capacity – The amount of drawdown
occurring in the wells during the pump tests is somewhat concerning. The less
drawdown, the better to sustain the well production. A reported 20 to 340 feet of
drawdown is occurring in the eight existing wells and may not be sustainable in the long
term at those pumping rates. The reported yields may not be achievable day after day,
year after year. Redundant wells and systems, as proposed, certainly improve the
reliability of the proposed water system. Additional wells may be necessary.
It is important to reiterate information in the PUD reports that state, “The Spring Valley
Ranch’s potable water system can utilize up to 36 groundwater wells to treat a total
system demand of 300 gallons per minute (gpm) to serve the domestic and irrigation
demands of the entire Spring Valley Ranch PUD. Currently, the six wells drilled for
potable consumption were tested and can produce a total 314 gpm. Due to the age of
the wells, all existing well casings and pipes will be replaced. In some instances, the
wells will need to be redrilled to a larger diameter to house the required 6-inch modern
motor to serve the PUD and possibly drilled deeper to access full sustainable
production from the aquifer.”
September 6, 2024
Page 3
3. Optimistic Irrigation Demand. Consumptive use of 1.79 acre-feet/acre/year as stated
in the Legal Water Supply report seems low and usually attributed to pasture grass
rather than lawn grass. We would be surprised if irrigation demand was this low for the
golf course and residential lawns for a luxury subdivision where the expectation to sell
houses is typically to have very green thick grass. The PUD golf course designer utilized
local golf course data to determine that the golf course will utilize approximately 329
acre-ft per year during the months of April to October. The calculations for the 329 acre-
feet figure would appear to be using a more realistic consumptive use of 2.13 acre-
feet/acre/year. The reports are not consistent where some discuss a 100-acre golf
course and others note a 124-acre golf course. Some note an 80% irrigation efficiency
and others note 67% efficiency. The report noted, “To estimate irrigation demands for
residences, it is assumed that each home would grow non-native bluegrass, which
would require a 0.12-inch application rate to adequately water the lawn during peak
summer conditions (e.g. hot, dry, no precipitation).” However, back calculating irrigation
demand from the tables provided shows the average daily application rate is 0.22 inches
per day during the month of July. It was assumed in the report calculations that water is
applied at 80% efficiency across the 100-acre golf course. We concur with the statement
that “Understanding the hotter and drier months (July and August) will require more
water than during cooler wetter months all the infrastructure (e.g. pump stations,
wetwells, pipeline) was designed to accommodate a maximum daily irrigation demand of
1,000,000 gallons per day in the event of extreme weather conditions,” even though the
average daily demand in July based upon the tables provided would be 750,000 gallons
per day. Designing the golf course facilities for 1,000,000 gallons per day is a
reasonable assumption.
4. Water Storage Tanks – The development proposes two potable water storage tanks,
approximately a 500,000-gallon potable water storage tank and a 350,000-gallon tank.
The tanks were sized to accommodate 24 hours of average water use plus fire storage,
which is typical. These are minimum sizes needed at build-out, and it may be prudent to
consider additional storage for such a large remote development. Average (not a peak)
daily demand is shown as 441,000 gallons per day, with 407,000 gallons attributed to
residential uses and 34,000 attributed to commercial uses. It is unclear whether this is
an average for the entire irrigation season or average for a peak month such as July.
Regardless, there is less than a two-day supply of water without a fire. A fire, major leak
in the system or mechanism failure could easily drain these tanks or at least prevent
them from refilling quickly. An emergency response plan is needed to supply potable
water should it become necessary.
5. Legal Water Supply – The legal report states that they have the ability to augment their
water depletions with storage water from Ruedi or Green Mountain to satisfy water users
on the Colorado River. There is concern about impacts between the development and
the Roaring Fork River. Are there intervening water users on Landis Creek? What will
Landis Creek look like downstream from the development at full buildout when the goal
is to capture as much runoff as possible? Will there be any water in the downstream
reach of Landis Creek to sustain the ecology?
September 6, 2024
Page 4
6. Storm Drainage – The site imperviousness will increase from development due to roads
and rooftops from what once was a formerly natural watershed and will cause more
frequent and more rapid stormwater runoff. This increased runoff can unravel natural
drainageways making them unstable and prone to serious erosion. The fix can be very
expensive. It is recommended to implement full spectrum stormwater detention including
storage of the water quality capture volume throughout the development area to control
runoff to historic rates. PUD reports do not mention any proposed measures such as
detention or water quality in the Existing Drainage and Flood Hazard Report. The reports
only calculated existing 100-year runoff flows. More work is needed to characterize
existing and future stormwater runoff flows and consider facilities to control runoff to
historic rates.
7. Sanitary Sewer – No information was provided on the Spring Valley Sanitation District.
Reports indicate that the District can treat everything from the development and
beyond. A concern is the discharge of the wastewater treatment plant to a receiving
waterway. Since there is so little water in that area today, discharges of treated effluent
have little ability to be diluted, thereby likely requiring a high level of treatment.
Overall, the PUD documents provided were very detailed and thorough. The above comments
are water-related items that caught our attention during the document review that may warrant
further attention in future submittals.
Sincerely,
Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Robert Krehbiel, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
Matrix Design Group, Inc.
707 17th Street, Suite 3150
Denver, CO 80202
O 303.572.0200
F 303.572.0202
matrixdesigngroup.com
Anniston, AL | Atlanta, GA | Colorado Springs, CO | Denver, CO | Niceville, FL | Parsons, KS | Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento, CA | Tamuning, GUAM | Texarkana, TX | Washington, DC
March 24, 2025
Glenn Hartmann
Director of Community Development
Garfield County
108 8th St, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD Modification
Review of Water Related Issues
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
Matrix Design Group, Inc, (Matrix), is pleased to continue to assist Garfield County with the
development review of PUD documents for Spring Valley Ranch. The development review was
limited to peer review of application submittals and technical reports related to:
• Water Rights Issues
• Water Supply Plans
• Aquifer Recharge Studies
• Other related water supply and water impact topics/issues including irrigation
considerations.
This letter is in response to updated documents and responses to comments from our
September 6, 2024 comment letter. Our comments are in response to the new and updated
documents listed below:
1. Spring Valley Ranch: Responses to 2nd Round of Referral Comments for PUD
Amendment Application (File No. PUAA-05-23-8967), dated December 3, 2024 by Land
West.
2. Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Narrative Report, revised December 2024 by
Land West.
3. Spring Valley Ranch PUD Existing Drainage and Flood Hazard Report, revised
November 12, 2024 by Roaring Fork Engineering.
4. Water Supply and Distribution Plan Spring Valley Ranch PUD, revised December 3,
2024 by Roaring Fork Engineering.
5. Spring Valley Ranch Aquifer Sustainability Study, updated January 9, 2025 by Colorado
River Engineering, Inc.
6. Spring Valley Ranch PUD, PUAA-05-23-8967, Water Division 5, Water District 38,
comment letter dated September 12, 2024 by Colorado Division of Water Resources.
The following comments are based upon a cursory review of documents and limited
understanding of the proposed development. This is a high level review with limited time on our
part to fully understand the long study history of the aquifer water supply. The following seven
areas of concern are a follow-up from our September 6, 2024 comments.
March 24, 2025
Page 2
Water Resources Comments, PUD Level
1. Physical Water Supply – The question of sustainability is based on a perpetual water
supply being available. This requires a supply that is reliably replenished by hydrologic
conditions and an appropriate assessment of anticipated demands. It is very difficult to
evaluate all of the relevant factors in a limited time frame and to make firm
recommendations to ensure adequate implementation of a water plan. Garfield County
will need to ensure that the water supply issues have been fully addressed to the extent
possible so that the proposed development has a sustainable water supply and that the
water can be delivered reliably. To date, much of the analysis has been an in-office
study of the aquifer and geology, with the exception of the field drilled wells and pump
tests. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fully understand at this stage of development the
extent and sustainable yield of the underground aquifer.
In an attempt to define what work may be needed to characterize the aquifer, we
reviewed development criteria from Douglas County and Town of Castle Rock
regarding groundwater supplies. It is not appropriate to directly compare development
criteria for the Denver Basin Aquifer on the Front Range with the Spring Valley Aquifer
(SVA)because the Denver Basin is a finite, declining resource, whereas the SVA is
recharged by precipitation. The Denver Basin Aquifer has been studied in much
greater detail than the Spring Valley Aquifer. The Stater Engineer’s Office (SEO)
allows the annual withdrawal of 1% (with 2% reserved) of the underlying Denver Basin
aquifer estimated yields. Local communities can, and do, define how much
development can be supported by the available supply. For example, Douglas County
allows variable credit for withdrawal from the Denver Basin aquifer based on the
property’s location over the formation. The maximum withdrawal credit is based on the
annual volume allowed by SEO Denver Basin rules. Some areas in Douglas County
over the Denver Basin formation are not allowed any Denver Basin credit and must
provide a renewable supply. The Town of Castle Rock allows credit from the Denver
Basin aquifers to support land use demands based on one-half of the annual volume
allowed by the SEO Denver Basin rules.
The additional information provided in the Updated Aquifer Sustainability Study helped
to address some of our concerns over the available physical water supply. The reports
indicate that there is a large underground aquifer storage available, and the annual
average precipitation recharge is calculated to be greater than the anticipated demand,
indicating there is a long-term, sustainable supply of water to serve all of the proposed
water needs of the development. Since the development only proposes to use less than
the recharge amount, the aquifer itself should theoretically not be depleted. A
recommendation on how to use the SVA should be based on how often it would be
tapped over time. There is sufficient renewable supply to meet the projected demands
and the SVA aquifer water in storage is only to be used in the event that recharge is not
adequate. It is stated that the development has considered dry periods in their
analysis. There is concern as to whether the SVA is adequate to meet those unusual
"dry periods" during reduced renewable supply periods.
To our knowledge, the water discharged out of the Spring Valley Aquifer to the Roaring
Fork River has not been quantified and is not fully understood. It may be impossible to
define at this time. The discharge may be a spill over without impact to the amount of
aquifer storage, and/or may be a leak in the aquifer storage. As stated, “The Colorado
River Engineering aquifer sustainability study (and prior studies) do not include an
March 24, 2025
Page 3
estimate for discharge from the aquifer in the comparison of water demands and annual
recharge because the aquifer is a flow through system with significant storage. The rate
of discharge to the Roaring Fork River is likely a function of the aquifer elevation, the
higher the elevation the larger the ground water gradient controlling the flow of
groundwater.”
Since there are some unknowns regarding exactly how the aquifer will function long
term with sustained well pumping to serve the development, it will be important to
implement a Groundwater Monitoring Plan. The Aquifer Sustainability Study notes
that, “This analysis, in conjunction with a groundwater monitoring plan, allows all SVA
water users to manage the water resource in a sustainable manner… The groundwater
levels in the SVA will experience seasonal and year-to-year fluctuations due to variability
in precipitation and snowpack inputs. Each of the subdivisions that pump water from the
SVA have a long term vested interest in a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan
to understand baseline and future groundwater conditions. A groundwater monitoring
plan is currently being developed for implementation by these water users.” We
recommend the development begin by sharing the details of this monitoring plan with
the County. The Monitoring Program should address:
1. What amount of drawdown of the aquifer is expected before it reaches
equilibrium? This will certainly vary by location but will be important to
understand if a drawdown is observed as to whether it is significant or
inconsequential.
2. Who would likely be affected by a drawdown of the aquifer, and what amount of
drawdown would be allowed before it causes an adverse impact to neighbors?
2. Well Capacity – We are trying to understand the target sustained flow rate needed
from the wells. We may need additional clarification on the well production rate needed
to sustain the proposed development. The Water Supply and Distribution Plan states
that, “The Spring Valley Ranch’s potable water system can utilize up to 36 groundwater
wells, to treat a total system demand of 300 gallons per minute (gpm) to serve the
domestic and irrigation demands of the entire Spring Valley Ranch PUD.” The Aquifer
Sustainability Study states, “Potable diversions, which are attributed solely to
groundwater sources, total 473.1 acre-feet…” To achieve this amount of water would
require a continuous pump rate of approximately 300 gallons per minute (gpm) every
minute of every day all year long. Summer usage is roughly twice the average annual
use so we would expect to need to pump the wells continuously at roughly 600 gpm in
July. To use numbers from the report, Table 3 of the Aquifer study shows 70.4 acre-feet
demand in July, which translates to 513 gpm continuously. Our experience is that wells
may be designed to be pumped roughly half the time to allow the aquifer at the well
head to recover. Therefore, a target flow rate of twice the continuous flow rate may be
needed if the pump operates only half the time. Hopefully, there is water in storage in
the tanks to manage peak demand, but a target well production rate should also
consider a peak day and peak hour water demand such as what may occur on a July
4th holiday weekend.
The Water Supply and Distribution Plan states that 6 wells drilled for potable
consumption were tested and can produce a total 314 gpm. It was noted in the Aquifer
Sustainability Study, “The proposed water supply plan for the potable water system
outlined by RFE is to develop at least 315 gpm from wells on the Middle Bench and on
the mountain” and that “315 gpm represents the maximum peak day demand in June
March 24, 2025
Page 4
and July.” Unless the qualifier is the Middle Bench possibly representing only part of the
demand, we think the peak summer average daily demand may be understated.
The good news is that the Spring Valley Ranch’s potable water system is reportedly
legally entitled to utilize up to 36 groundwater wells, meaning that additional wells can
be drilled to meet demand if needed. The Aquifer Sustainability Study states that 15
wells that have been drilled on the Spring Valley Ranch project property. The Colorado
Division of Water Resources notes that 14 wells have been constructed on the property
for potable use. (We assume one existing well is intended for raw water.) We are not
clear on the statement in the Aquifer study that 18 additional wells can be developed on
the property. It would appear that 21 additional wells could be drilled (36-15=21).
The Aquifer Sustainability Study states, “…there are 3 high capacity SVA wells and
have been tested with a combined long-term yield of approximately 600 gpm.” The 600
gpm figure is closer to the target pump rate than 300 gpm stated.
Well capacity will be a critical factor to meet all of the development water demands. The
demand on the aquifer may be further tapped for non-potable water use in addition to
the above commentary for potable demands. The Aquifer study states, “It is proposed
to use the SVA wells to provide supplemental irrigation water for open space and golf
course areas, and to supply the snowmaking demand.” It will be important to
understand the well production capacity needed at build-out for both potable and raw
water needs.
3. Irrigation Demand – Concerns over the figures used for consumptive use, application
rates, irrigation efficiency and size of the golf course area to be irrigated have been
addressed. No further comment.
4. Water Storage Tanks – The development agrees that more storage is always beneficial
and proposes to go beyond the minimums for this relatively remote development where
there is no alternate potable water supply available. Two potable water storage tanks are
proposed, approximately 885,000-gallon potable water storage tank for the lower zone
and a 455,000-gallon tank for the upper zone. In addition, there will be an
interconnection between the upper and lower zones for use in an emergency for the
lower zone. No further comment.
5. Legal Water Supply – The Legal Report indicates they have the ability to augment their
water depletions with storage water from Ruedi or Green Mountain to satisfy water users
on the Colorado River. Spring Valley Ranch reportedly owns all of the water rights on
Landis Creek. There is no local call from senior water rights on Landis Creek or Red
Canyon Creek. Although the Spring Valley Ranch development reportedly has a legal
right to all the surface water, we noted in our September 6, 2024 comments that use of
all the surface water in Landis Creek will have an impact to the environment and ecology
downstream.
As noted by the Colorado Division of Water Resources there are two issues that need to
be addressed:
A. A “majority of these wells do not have valid well permits.” We do not
understand is this is an administrative issue, or something more serious.
March 24, 2025
Page 5
B. “The current augmentation plan does not include snowmaking.”
6. Storm Drainage – Site imperviousness will increase due to roads, driveways and
rooftops which will cause more frequent and more intense stormwater runoff. This
increased runoff from a natural environment to a developed site can unravel natural
drainageways making them unstable and prone to serious erosion.
Per the Existing Drainage and Flood Hazard Report, each proposed lot in the PUD will
be required to capture and treat stormwater to a historic rate. The Water Supply and
Distribution Plan notes that the intent is that each home site will provide on-site detention
to mitigate for the additional impervious area that will be created by roofs, driveways,
and other hardscape. The Drainage Report indicates that there will be 94 acres in total
of roadways, and only those drainage basins will an appreciable change in
imperviousness caused by the roadways alone will implement 25-year stormwater
detention, which is generally considered flood control detention. Our concerns are:
A. It is difficult and cumbersome to manage stormwater controls on a lot-by-lot basis
for runoff from all of the rooftops and driveways. It may be prudent to pro-actively
seek opportunities for regional stormwater detention, especially where
development is clustered, and stormwater is concentrated into storm drains or
open channel drainageways.
B. Stormwater runoff water quality is most effectively treated for smaller, more
frequent events. “Water Quality Capture Volume” (WQCV) is defined as
treatment of a ½-inch of runoff. Detention of only large flood event storms (25-
year runoff) and letting smaller storms pass through undetained can adversely
affect runoff water quality and lead to channel erosion. It is recommended to
implement full spectrum stormwater detention to manage the more frequent
stormwater events. Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) such
as noted to vegetate channels, armor channels and slowing the velocity of
stormwater to prevent erosion are also important.
7. Sanitary Sewer – The Spring Valley Sanitation District is reported to permitted to treat
all wastewater generated by Spring Valley Ranch and has agreed to serve the proposed
development. There is a note in the Legal Water Supply document that “Storied
Development reserves the ability to serve a portion of its development through Onsite
Wastewater Treatment Systems,” (OWTS) which could be important for early phases of
development before the sanitary sewer pipeline is completed to the plant or for early
development of remote building lots.
The Water Supply and Distribution Plan notes that wastewater flow is calculated at 300
gallons per EQR per day, whereas potable water use is defined as 350 EQR per day.
This implies a 14% consumptive use, whereas the augmentation decree is based upon a
5% consumptive use for a central wastewater treatment system. The wastewater loading
should be clarified whether it is 300 or 332 gallons per day per EQR.
The Spring Valley Sanitation District’s wastewater treatment plant is reportedly permitted
for 0.5 Million Gallons per Day (MGD). Spring Valley Ranch has paid for 646 EQR’s, or
about 0.2 MGD or about 40% of the permitted plant capacity at full build-out, as we
understand. The proposed development anticipated wastewater loading is within the
permitted treatment plant capacity.
March 24, 2025
Page 6
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD documents demonstrate significant engineering studies and work
in the field have been completed over a period of many years to attempt to address all the
physical and legal requirements for water resources. Notwithstanding all of the research that
has been completed by experts in the field, there are some pertinent water related issues
requiring additional clarification or investigation.
Sincerely,
Matrix Design Group, Inc.
Robert Krehbiel, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
September 12, 2024
Glenn Hartmann,Director
Garfield County Community Development
Transmission via email: ghartmann@garfield-county.com
RE: Spring Valley Ranch PUD, PUAA-05-23-8967
Township 6 South, Range 88 West, 6th P.M.
Water Division 5, Water District 38
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
We have reviewed the water supply information provided for the above referenced
application to amend a planned unit development (PUD) first approved in 2008. It is our
understanding that a PUD application is a zoning approval process for a comprehensive plan
for a property that includes a mix of possible uses within the development, but is not a
preliminary plan for a subdivision. In addition, we understand that not all uses proposed for a
PUD may be realized and therefore the water supply plan for all the potential uses at this
phase may not be finalized. In light of this, we have performed a cursory review and are
providing informal comments, instead of an opinion pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I),
C.R.S., regarding the proposed water supply. The comments do not address the adequacy of a
water supply plan for this project or the ability of a water supply plan to satisfy any County
regulations or requirements. In addition, the comments provided herein cannot be used to
guarantee a viable water supply plan or infrastructure, the issuance of a well permit, or
physical availability of water.
Amended PUD
From the information provided, the Spring Valley Ranch PUD will be located on 5908.43 acres
currently consisting of four parcels (Garfield County Parcel Nos. 218716100169,
218720100168, 218726200168, 218733100152), in Sections 14-16, 20-23, 26-29 and 32-34, all
in Township 6 South, Range 88 West, approximate six miles southeast of Glenwood Springs.
The amendment proposes to modify components of the planned PUD including the type and
number of development units,irrigation requirements, and to add snowmaking as a use of its
non-potable water system. The proposed amended PUD allows for 577 dwelling units, lawn
and garden irrigation in and around the home sites, commercial facilities such as clubhouse,
tennis facilities, golf course facilities, health club facilities, maintenance facilities and
similar, an 18-hole golf course and associated short course and practice facilities, a winter
recreation area including a private ski hill.
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 dwr.colorado.gov/
Jared S. Polis, Governor | Dan Gibbs, Executive Director | Jason T. Ullmann, State Engineer/Director
Garfield County Community Development September 12, 2024
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Page 2 of 5
Water Demands
The following estimated water demands were provided in the referral materials:
1. Residential domestic use: 577 residential units. The in-house domestic demand is 280
acre feet per year, with a corresponding 14 acre-feet per year of consumptive use.
2. Residential site irrigation: approximately 33.8 acres of lawn and garden irrigation in and
around the home sites. This equates to 89.8 acre-feet/year of demand and 71.8 acre-
feet of consumption, based on 80% application efficiency.
3. Commercial: 38.0 acre-feet of estimated potable demand for clubhouse, tennis facilities,
golf course facilities, health club facilities, maintenance facilities and similar.
Commercial consumption will be 5.7 acre-feet per year.
4. Golf Course Irrigation: 124 acres of irrigation for an 18-hole golf course and associated
short course and practice facilities. The golf course designers estimate a demand of
329.4 acre-feet from April through October; and 263.5 acre-feet of consumption (based
on 80% application efficiency).
5. Open Space Irrigation: 100 acres. This equates to 265.7 acre-feet/year, assuming an
application rate of 2.657 acre-feet/acre and 212.6 acre-feet of consumptive use
(assuming 80% application efficiency).
6. Ponds and Hopkins Reservoir: 24 surface acres resulting in 77.6 feet/year of consumptive
evaporation.
7. Snowmaking: 140 acre-feet of demand for the months of November, December, and
January; with 42 acre-feet/year of consumption.
Water Supply
The Spring Valley Ranch PUD will be supplied by two systems: a potable water system which
will supply residential in-house purposes, residential lawn and garden irrigation, and
commercial in-building uses. The non-potable system will supply the primary irrigation needs
for the golf course and open space areas and for snowmaking purposes. In a letter dated
January 31, 2023, the applicant’s attorney indicated the overall water supply for the
development will be supplied from surface water diversions under senior decreed irrigation
water rights from Landis Creek, existing and proposed wells and springs and storage structures
including Hopkins Reservoir.
As indicated in the referral materials the following proposed and existing structures will
supply various aspects of the potable and non-potable systems:
Ditches
Kendall and Stricklett Ditch, Landis Ditch Nos. 1 and 2, O.K. Ditch, Forker and Gibson
Ditch, and Frank Chapman Ditch – decreed in Civil Action 306 for a total of 12.0 c.f.s. and
have historically been used to irrigate up to 300 acres.
Garfield County Community Development September 12, 2024
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Page 3 of 5
Hopkins Ditch - decreed for 3.0 c.f.s. in Case No. W-3298-A with a 1976 priority date for
the irrigation of 150 acres.
Springs
The Hopkins Spring No. 1, Hopkins Spring No. 2, B-R Hopkins Spring were decreed in Case
W-3121, Case W-3122, and Case W-2395, respectively, for domestic purposes and to
irrigate roughly 14 acres.
Storage
The Hopkins Reservoir was originally constructed in 1910 and is filled with water from
feeder ditches, melting snow, and drainage flowing or seeping directly into the reservoir.
The Hopkins Reservoir was decreed in Civil Action 1419 for 119.57 a.f., with the right to
fill and refill for storage and for the irrigation of 300 acres.
Wells
Spring Valley Well No. 1
Spring Valley Ranch Well Nos. 2 and 3
SVH Well Nos. 5 through 10
ASR Well Nos. 13 through 16
SVR Well Nos. 17 through 36
The Spring Valley Well No. 1, Spring Valley Ranch Wells Nos. 2 and 3, and SVH Wells 5-10 were
decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in case no. 84CW212 to be alternate points of diversion
to the Basalt Conduit water right decreed in Civil Action No. 4613.
These wells along with the Hopkins Springs Nos. 1 and 2 were included in an approved plan for
augmentation in case no. 87CW155 to offset out-of-priority depletions associated with the
operation of the structures as a supply for the Spring Valley Ranch development. Under this
original augmentation plan, out-of-priority depletions would be replaced through water
released from Green Mountain Reservoir and Ruedi Reservoir under a contract with Basalt Water
Conservancy District. Two separate contracts were referenced, providing a total of 420
acre-feet of augmentation water.
In case no. 98CW254, the Division 5 Water Court approved a “supplemental” augmentation
plan which included the structures described in the 87CW155 case and added the ASR Well
Nos. 13 through 16, SVR Well Nos. 17 through 36, the ASR Ditch No. 1 and treated effluent
under the Spring Valley Sanitation District Pipeline water right as augmented structures. The
decree also increased the amount of irrigation allowed under the augmentation plans.
Under the augmentation plan (original and supplemental), the augmented structures may be
used to supply in-house uses for 577 residential units which was estimated to equate to 695
single-family residential equivalent units (EQRs) because some of the single family dwellings
will equate to more than one EQR, in-building commercial use, irrigation of residential lawns
Garfield County Community Development September 12, 2024
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Page 4 of 5
and commercial landscaping, and a maximum of 420 acres of irrigated golf courses, open
space and agricultural areas. The decree also estimated the in-house domestic use to be 350
gallons per day per EQR with a consumptive use rate of 5% for a central wastewater
treatment system or 15% for septic and leach field, irrigation requirements to be 2.24
acre-feet per acre with a 1.79 acre-feet per acre consumptive use, and open water surface
evaporation at 2.05 acre-feet per acre. Commercial development will be equated to EQRs by
determining the expected in-house water usage of the commercial facility and equating that
usage to one EQR for each 350 gallons per day.
The augmentation plan allows for an annual water demand of 1,457 acre-feet of diversions, a
total annual consumptive use of 974 acre-feet in a dry year, and an overall augmentation
requirement of 420 acre feet for out-of-priority depletions. The decree in case no. 98CW254
allows for modification to the number of EQRs and irrigated acreage if the depletions do not
exceed 974 acre-feet. The decree also notes that senior ditch rights on Lanis Creek, to the
extent they are available in priority, will be used to meet the irrigation water requirements of
the development so that the augmentation requirement will be substantially less than the
maximum consumptive use of 974 acre-feet.
Potable System:
According to the Spring Valley Aquifer Sustainability Report prepared by Colorado Engineering
Inc., the potable water system will be supplied solely by groundwater sources. Currently 14
wells have been constructed on the property though according to our records the majority of
these wells do not have valid well permits that allow the wells to operate as part of an
integrated supply system to serve the Spring Valley Ranch PUD property. Either the well
permits files are missing required evidence of pump installation prior to the permit expiration
date or the well permit currently limits the use to monitoring/observation purposes.
Non-Potable/Raw Water System:
As described in the Water Supply and Distribution Plan dated February 2, 2023, the raw water
system will be used to irrigate the golf course and landscaping for the commercial locations
inside the golf course area (clubhouse, family barn,etc.) during the summer months and will
supply water for snowmaking purposes in the winter months.
The raw water system will consist of four wells located in the lower meadow. Groundwater
from the wells during the summer season will be pumped and distributed to the irrigation
ponds throughout the golf course. During the winter months, the wells will be pumped to
Hopkins Reservoir to then be used for snowmaking purposes. As the developer does not
currently have specific water rights for snowmaking, an additional or amended BWCD
allotment contract to cover any depletions associated with snowmaking and amended well
permits to allow for a well and storage based snowmaking system to serve a ski hill will be
required.
Garfield County Community Development September 12, 2024
Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Page 5 of 5
Final Comments
Based on the information provided, the intended primary supply for the development will be
from the Spring Valley Well No. 1, Spring Valley Ranch Well Nos. 2 and 3, SVH Well Nos. 5
through 10, ASR Well Nos. 13 through 16 and SVR Well Nos. 17 through 36 operating in
accordance with the augmentation plan originally decreed by the Division 5 Water Court in
case no. 87CW155 and the supplemental augmentation plan decreed in case no. 98CW254.
Under the augmentation plan the use of the augmented structures are limited to in-house/in
building domestic and commercial purposes and residential and golf course irrigation.
Associated depletions also include evaporation from open water surfaces. The augmentation
plan allows for an annual water demand of 1,457 acre-feet of diversions, a total annual
consumptive use of 974 acre-feet in a dry year, and an overall augmentation requirement of
420 acre feet for out-of-priority depletions. The decree in case no. 98CW254 allows for
modification to the number of EQRs and irrigated acreage if the depletions do not exceed 974
acre-feet.
However the current augmentation plan does not include snowmaking. The applicant will be
required to obtain an approved augmentation plan and new well permits that include the use
of snowmaking in order to use the wells for this purpose. In addition, the majority of the
wells constructed to date do not have a valid well permit to allow the well to operate as part
of an integrated supply system to serve the Spring Valley Ranch PUD property. Either the well
permits files are missing required evidence of pump installation prior to the permit expiration
date or the well permit currently limits the use to monitoring/observation purposes. Valid
well permits issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-137(2) and the augmentation plan will be required
before the wells could be operated to supply the development.
Finally, references were made in the referral material regarding senior surface water rights,
though no specifics were provided as to how these surface water rights would be included as a
supply for the development. The use of these surface rights must be in accordance with their
decrees and are limited to the decreed use and place of use. Any change or expansion of use
or historically irrigated area would require a change of water right.
If you, or the Applicant, have any questions please contact me at 303-866-3581 x8212.
Sincerely,
Megan Sullivan, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
ec: Referral No. 32487
Petitions Signed bv L ocal Residents to Halt/Oppose
the
Proposed Sprine Vallev Ranch Su bstantial PUD
Amendment.
Total s tg natures Collected : 1.033
Physical Signatures: 7 L7
Online Signatures: 315
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing lhe
shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring valley
Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a 5,900-acre
luxury, private golf course community eonsisting primarily of second homes) is
currently under review by Garfield county. we are concerned that this
development will destroy the unique rural character of our community by
interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to ,l,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial puD
Amendment.
(
m
8c* ^^e
13
12
11
10
I
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
pr.rr.€ Iiqd,l"
a,i-r
,"(,'-li, /rt fl,ai,,1
''ilftrtu\c,- (ar 1* l[.,
.Sa*'c.n /r,ir.\tt"ri
\t rtisr /4 csS
Wan d, V rv'''lorl
,li*tf t ,t.r,)
("',r,v(],ii,,, n il t,i,
trrLt-r.u...", f<'r
'r, i/i,' ni;(,fi*
-r S-1..t',,-r F[a-,
Name
\ttl Leur+y f*ar,{ [0t
/ 1.j /r'),t ,t.-- ,n Q.1 UJi ,
)t' knwlDt \ C",,'in, ,5lQ'll)
i|t4 ti{r?i<-rn: ,:,..ir A\aL.""
/iiV l'rt,lc (-t (t,,br,n/,
ZL Ct"ql,.ln rc1
,)c "l ,uV^ , ^ Sl (-'t,6,tn t,i
3t(, L,c'.K- i?..ri.r i^l-.-\,1-,,,i,rd
tirtl /,f /<rtv' liVG &ilgwtv':tl
[: +i Lit.,(-\;. tf",< G"o-udi-(
\'gZ:,1+ij-i";rr_ D e,('*ii. .,-,; r,6
?2"i'( Lt1;-pt-- R,.r.u Po\
Address
k,t{!, ))
i 1,4.4
Signature
:iI LI),!a-17 -
a{
t,
t
ilTir r4rr.r Cn rbci I tcha:€-Ar
>.
tcL ln1J,/n*;f O,
hlfot t ^ ".-.f- t' @ ii'r r' r | -.o
hiLa,/14,tt; C ilnorL
4C i i Li,'i rln i^,,i?ih;-u,:[, -
',,^,-,k l, i ,t' ,-,i,-*.,Si.
,t< .a_ _- - _- I
_>tit\L'. \' Li I
cC t'u ,'(,,{r,i,ai/,1c;u i
U2gh.ie:f'.r,--Gi r\c..*rr . "".
Email
L:Jlnt
,t l*&r
rhr
L,-.,-i,,
6ntr,,lr
,'l,i'r 1f, . :.
,;,r"n ll
tr He,^
Gounty
\
t/
/
\/-
t,'
',/
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
9ca* ^e,
1
3
5
6
J c-wr t u". ..la \ .o A sL',r*( I
U.
1v.?-1-t v1{
./'l
€qh
di ,', ,.r s c ic t,
(_-->tl!.t;
tl,'l
Printed Name Street Address nature Cou JoinEmail
f,
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment-
(
8c ^e
\i
t/
r?iLj
M,^o^ B-*r*^0o UV
I t-'I l'rfgii
t,
.a
i
a/l
1{j--J1t/r r')1.1 /
+-I ,)
wnll
^n1".''L4(1
a y1 Ll-.4
I
\L*-{-r-tc it J,'r ,'!tL L.' t(L ?.t
LF-7 \.i ib
Printed Name Street Address nature Email JoinsCoE
I
I
10
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed devetopment {a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course communidr consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
1 ti i i'-.-., "-'r? ,7*t
i\
J t:'4 /-
Printed Name Street Address Email Cous E Join
7
8
9
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course communityr consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubledly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
(
8m* ^o
2
3
4
6
7
I
J,
f,/i^ /'L.,r/o.,,. j'u-r : 1--rl, d,,", (
It^ ichnsc''
I \l
Rr^, 'Jo\nsl,i ti M,euu(o*.*l lf
/.,:/,,'!{ i /:
Printed Name Street Address / Sigrcture
;5q.\.q\, \..6,Ccr
&q'I .( a41
Email IJ E JoinCo
i!
I
t
t0
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
9ea* ^o
-a ..i.: .
-,:l
L-V
()
!-vL-'0
^)
1_
L
'L,(
"1.'(
-2.A t S?a: il
Printed Name Street Address S nature Cou Et
( t1r,'1*l ,to u7,+u; {, 16.;',I t
6
8
I
10
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8r* ^t
I
2
3
6
l
1
VL(
l4v*[- W /,4c v '?/
rk,r A1 /v;fr r{t
€ \\ r+3 Ltol-lS 12-iDC{E {z-DS A7r
\
.,Y?\lltil
a- Lllis 'l t
L c/Y15
(-f ?1 ,'L.944
cu 'l
, royn
Printed Name Street Address JoinEmail
-{5 t'n \ tLrtl 'CL.r'r
.2)*t I
Zj5Z C1'.,te Itrrtal Dr Ca;.b",-n 71 v\nt\ rr\
k_-JJ'/"
c\, lr
I
Ilcf q Il; t:iL-\LlC t-
(^z,.I
Petilion: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
(
9co* ^e
2
3
5
6
7
I
'fr t^r. I Mr.nr oi0 11 .[t,1 \1, rirN f',i"[r
V,tu b tP f' (u ci { ni (7- G it o ry\,. r1
t' t \'; YLtr-
',) Q- r?[ rk t:/ (r
Ittt({ llf&-t J I r* tCI G'6r
vr l1*t^uft t'lt,o d )Y' C;'lri,rrnh'r'
-'A+ G o C,,\i t1 1'\u L'C?tt ?r
)o{^^' E ll w,, / /'to |ra} A,r,/,t,'
I\o^., , \i .tb 4 ot, L l'\1 ," r, Y' |. Y rli Arr.z
Printed Name Street Address
J
t ,r'l iI L --r"\d,\ir-a,t L,: \ rir...,;{ i r a.,,\,
(L L^,"* 3k op.re- (+*s CIQ-"lvn u&(
Y
It^.-
+-"'-.tu \^i{l"
A ir:. ,t
Ir-/\i
'q
r' I (':\'\-\
4t i*
Signature
'7
((
:.r\ii-i- P \" ."i\ )e?
(<, rJ.l \,a,,--C)
Email Go BE Join
G
G
P
JJ
tilf',(
w,((
@ ,Le.|;h
10
q
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,90O-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
seeond homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
FUD Amendment.
(
8"a* *e
-.,9-..
1
2
3
5
6 57.J(
1
l,/,t
L,^Jr ot((.r n:
st'c{aWnn \(\k v{fi,[t rtrie
enn Ho / lrn llos N bn\ StVvCrrn
Q re,-.= fi. G,rv= 7--'.-
crl ,ft\'4 0l (,),?,\\^ t-{ \
.. L^.
U, I rL,\Y-f ,t(
' q-Lhullnl se Mrtrl c
lC,,l,?v/.n,, -l;\ t,/2 1A ..,|
Printed Name Street Address Email Join
1li4Lt:>,,61;a 7,.,rvr; ?1,a,\ut ch I)6
Sri rtr. cftf i (';/. *t "^,.Lt
\-'t
L ,t ,1L'
14
c.J
5 \,
Petition: Opposition fo the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The $pring valley coalition is a community{ased organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development {a
5,90O-acre luxury private golf course communityl consisting primariry of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rurat character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. ll will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
(
9rar" ^e
2
3
4
6
7
I
s
(-
t'i1
I4 /\l {,,";l fl.': 4'J( i'[r.,-i.r_j
dA(c -
f.t.C{:+.{a_
) il
,','\ , il lCt;lr.l eQ
C /1)lrl t il,ct,rn ?ttr,/Y1cCfl,o izIL Ll
l1 .1dJ"t ,,, i L., 1r*^f :.,g'i, t i:t\,1 '-1
t
,BEPrinted Name Street Address Email JoinS
U"(-S(It (l8i(z | !'.[t
COI })7qo ,hL
l0
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisling primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are
concerned that this developrnent will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
Sca"" ^e
5
7
8
I
CL*.,
n-,2 q/
f 6"r',+cu/'*-\dr *"e i'*Lv ' "<-u-^t\&*
"tLV
(q(
\s6B a:\v..L.A l\dr-.U b G,
Or.v')rQa1
Printed Name Street Address nature Email Cou E Join
L
/a
( g G,"^.:( e,q,t77._u , Lo St_Di
10
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. ll will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
(
9eo^ ^e
/i
1
2
3
5
LE {L,
t-a n I s Lt .(i '- t'/0s 4 rf( r-)
{u
^lir- 5LL(: ya ?\ ?\r>\
{-fl**{1*^ 9.0,^,ir,,^ru.l t'e Atp''^r1 \t &torLt", !{,.,,
,"J
l''\nrrr"lo-r- lcit \v^r., \ .1 11w,\
: t1J.1<1.'1 u /, r',*a4r
br v
6ra, trvl t : r-o I h,'€( li / 26
G"rW
2i ert tt. I
\ rb4
t,ut2,L *Ai+|,
/ i t ?'iLr/'
It 't r- l-l +.(
0 <J ar if."(6.1 J !'tar
Ln* \tr!t tvrrul.l- lc\) \nrinrr I Cr.C'L*A*a(,L h, ,ffii--l-- : ye a s te ':vuL? t\\'v\Y 0 q r*"''\'.
iMa\ <,n',V -c (J-
1u. uL i.€t,'vV(i.t l\/ra
'r,
L LA-
Street Address t-' EmarlPrinted Name )n
bwqk, \daa
-'=1
n
/?,'Yt€
6^.AuiJ
e-i."^"'t i
€| , {-, ,,Ct'
v
I
j-.t--;t, i
4
4 (
10
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
9eo* ^o
2
3
5
6
Grt"J',lr CtOV
(',-\,:' <tl\r\-{) L )'Cr Do.^ c\ciut((\
\.r {r tict, N\-Ct,o\Lr-
lZ TZXVtecJrlAW (a,o It
v KSchu, lt zo cl) C^>4
z3
rt r
clo alb(.,1 q;{0t0YO
{*€Vrb
Q,o)1.^, [:, rlz, I I tz s-< 2...-i.,,i Ri ll r (
t.-t; //r t b 6 t,,,i .,,., J, r,-',.i ."t q
tlrth Nans\rr,)nat bta- *ur,ra,-, €",4 9traz7 /z 1 7 74rr/z ce / r r'6/ A nza i 6Printed Name Street Address s GoEmail JoinE
t/,,-'l\,"w^Q
JLi A
,\jt \q C 'wovva\rt "ns\.il l,quhuicli?i1.I\4\,\L
l^I ( r.'-\oV,4 1
L P ')t/)
So^-*o!t-.>o-.Lo"r-
\+
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The $pring Valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is eurrently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will deslroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
8c* ^e
4
b
7
E
ilrtt,v I 4 tuhtb 4
[Ani! f\].rl-'ra-tj- be$ s Je/ s+ Cr:aa (' {*lL"{;+-
-J.r./ 11* * E-(, A7 L') i) :1,t ,r' I i(ct. ,iri j^ !/tc*{1-'
Iu
2 i i, v'1\5.i r,.i r Wn
q(
IU
Street Address nature Email G,BE JoinPrinted Name Cou
D f,.\tr Jz LiItr^i^ n l.,n ^ 1n i)JQ
\;,Jrn& Sle.,.,i.,;i Llla 6^.{irt,,1,4u* Cl.l.rn,",(f o bo,,,rr, J. urfiJtt rr
511 9. Ln,i S|. ('nrb--'tctrcf-.t liLt i1s i11s I j.
b
GrP'
C\1t\
L^
da u-
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: $pring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the $pring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
8r* ^o
2
I
4
5
6
I
t-['Lr,\*
\,,)lld
^ ASu-.,t \.V\i^ SllV\g=-
lr,t,tr',i 1 ,,tt,l L't; + *({
1v \on,c\
,1 1.l ,tvw,^x
1
t.{-?/'t4t1j' - lr -
/-7
ri)rJ 5 L:l'r
s Cou E ) JoinNameStreet Address EmailrG
,_)_
*r
I
il:1.-J,/
/
10
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a communitytased organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course comrnunity consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
9ca* ^e
6
7
I (^ N\'rnlrll <ln i({ tn (w e
\J {5' s n"t jiL?
t". lr):rilen ',.-t-) t lt ilr,tj.Pi bGi'C\
Printed Name Street Address
4 ', o'-i k ,7)
t-i*
!lk
jtt I
J_
e
76 (EJ,ftLt CIA(LA CaiTlj"'." )4ce E I6'L{, \'L S(t*) )rLCi)
\r e;''t Le ile.,"r1,\bLtl\)c
</L,t Ye;
t,,3 /lr Ue.('" u
Z G
1
i -7-
.1s; lr"tr,.irt ,-ir,ln,., /J <o'.,6
'It
, J(-o97r(. G 7k Y^hu (c.,*-t k
t?,;'l G-
h-t\1Qln
^rr7kt
cv'
Lrusg-g Ct>tOa
I G@
Email Cou Join
I (
t{cas ('\:)
il
l0
\\
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
eilmmunity by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
(
9eo^ ^o
3
4
5
6
7
a^. i..{ U \X(-
4 tl l.tr
4(( r l-,^
',.)c.il L e cf w C
v"l .1cr )
-'1 ci i (iltrv'-^'-e-L
--r
Printed Name Street Address Email Co E JoinS
r\ r [L,,,1
ieyl r-ii)"ll\'i:i,,;,l(t)
,e
L-/,t<\ luf ,:ot- rrU,
tr
I
\n,(
..:
(r))
,'li Ar.t
.,t
17z-,' .'
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
*...ffirElF
2
3
5
t D5L v,, I 14 (ir /;?L
c{s(^ z6LvILr l^l/
II .)a t l'VurA
4 1'-{
4f\)\%rlf ;qji iv\ 'i L t',,vIti q\ t \tI trl/t i { C t',i\ Urnt'{ui',i(\1 t I o.)
I v'\l,n5)t ,-ga4 "i : rl Sv,[
,BEPrinted Name Street Address Email Join
Irr I ,9 \(i l.{"Ll u.rtHi, ', ^ (6/\
IL ---rz7 \
L r'Ll \ri n- L'1,1
I v -/t
L I 6 il' 6,,,'a C I
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The $pring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^e
2
3
4
6
7
I
I :. .4iti-i-'d-
l/.
lA iitl it +c((r'
":IheL-r L!Lr*v-' l3o-- C r{I c?ix
2.LI
/"., \L!_1:
./tr
6r,.ra0JJ I
rotd,lryl t ( ,\,{'
7
Printed Name Street Address Email Gou JoinE
c2''t \nDr'-- ll i l'1?,i a)
frrt ( t^i LL'l{,'t f c( (nr"c;L,,y91t5j8rn 6t t /,F, oh'1 c', t C+-YY,
Z--,I
.ct.' / . Ct..^-1
('a:_
;/t tl{s t' t,\4i illt-44 ">
0 .'' t l/1 | \n
15,' 1,^ | i'''' n'l ;,\C" \/)',-,t..l'^.Vttti'' ! 7 D c'6r' l" ; i. {,.,,,,'u'":,;..,;)i-tt ' '.- 1/-.r,'' 'i' a.->i :,1
10
.t , -,{
[,::'L'r )
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
9car" ^o
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
2
3
4
5
6
J
b
0\4 L \bres \100Dc\'fuvbtfD.
e'do.M-.
s rrgre .1Om
D
[-? [ N.lb ffqn
62\vareI RO.
C"*^,*- \'"6S Jtv-
ie{,2 .S;\
(La rt -.10 I t^(/'
Qotlvl( ba*.
Ztrr,L.c 6 ,y1|a tf L b-r, f\N\{l(.k (ra J.ta
,tj ,t-r^/-(..)-\c,.r.11-l i>
BEPrinted Name Street Address Co Join
l0
V V\)4.h,(?f v"rlqf l0 6 €l*r^&rrt aao'dit-
dfsrd<rDqdr l,corr-Go4,
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing the
shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring Valley
Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a 5,900-acre
luxury, private golf course communi$r consisting primarily of second homes) is
currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned that this
development will destroy the unique rural character of our community by
interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD
Amendment.
I
(
"'i 1:'j- -' --f]:.''r 8*^t
13
12
11
10
9
I
7
6
5
4(
3
2
1
(.\
j..+,\r^- Il,r\ ^^
ln^/^€j{,rs
nn r\-! ttA-r^+t Ci[{
EIL
. ', t'ri.t L oo v^\5
I'a.c.
Ii ,r+ V*Yn
htV, iin$u[ii -Qyu,,*
I
- - - t- I
-\nZr o !'>p-^
6 ln"r,r( [/or1p,\t't
Name
. I Z b 7 ? i,t-e^ EP4 l-,v'rn't' 1 ,'r-tirS C 0 t
1?1'\,,lwlib,rs*il (,r 7
..-1.1 \I
hc' - ('o" .u \i 7..!.
<rq? "i,l+ c---, o.4)
5 teq f o;ni.i /l,l i5+
/C i),/,1 Ro*',Dr, bu/<
&3 cil t|" J 6cs
3gco o\,1 l.rtr.v-{', j ,.S
t1
ott?5 tK lCr 6tuj
8q <r AJ 16* Ln s
ut-{< cti:hr?4 Jo *
Address
',#ttw
'(!
^;,, f fr,.,,,
:;l/XdeL4-s'-
,,-/i -, ^^ :'le' l**r; L
%at-.
l,/
\,t,h '.!wuVl t"\-&L
r1
I
ffi*u"^/. \Signature
fr/t,n,- /. o a,ttt€, (o/r;/,,b,
t j rr,?q\ 3u,G=.4^,*1r\ . go,nr
r\i \ tn11Z) ?autr,,^,i arv"r-
44pan)"1t *{,lr^}^.*
=olrun) ?,6 /e-24^ot_ **
€AeiletrG ciin-LJ ,i r-,vh.
Email
(--
ilrr E
n\)
u
6
&-
(r
t_:-
County
1-v(
E
G
,-t'
/
Join
/
@
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing the
shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring Valley
Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a 5,900-acre
luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of second homes) is
currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned that this
development will destroy the unique rural character of our community by
interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD
Amendment.
E
(
S"ot hrb
i:
i.
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
'6-L[lirr^ il**d
Bur\1,?44r4u
\fu&Cn/,^f\
/rp\q p I"o,Y\q
k"^.^ &\.=h.,
Tnetr rhldailfr'u
t.0., ?l'(ror\a 'n
(i';pu( (rsrfu,r
1- jor:tnr /kn/ F(,l/-
-{,/rtn fitonk-
D.qnt@s 5csn)
Name
b\ rB \t.1 f.t-nrl
t5 CL t/'7- GU)
65 CLtla+ 1tJs
i(i I
AI't Ccb}e,r Au. (
:1 t-:J (Z taY
qq Wc Karcr'\ 9v,
hqe_u
1'15 Co, Ac{ t G 1
3E3" u. t4. rc>
Address
,{
To.-f,/ lv. ,
ru
4
1-/
ft" S-*/f
Signature
ilr .Y
b'L^ p'or| Qkut^*,(-
Yr 5 e rn',sn -spn
Email
(-
oT)-C=
Q,
(a-
.il
G
Ih
G
h
6
Gounty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendnrent
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing the
shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose thc Spring Valley
Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a 5,g00-acre
luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of seeond homes) is
currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned that this
development wili destroy the unique rural character of our community by
interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to f ,0C0,000 gallorrs of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative irnpact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petiticn to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD
Amendrneni.
EI
(
8""r, mp
't3
12
11
10
I
8
7
5
5
4
J
2
1
9, frta (
3 uo$., nt,
I
".*n".,,^nn;^ h!p;.l,
, --)'-hf,5bL JTntln
/';sn6*r/*"-
lro*A
(qJ-It I L/*nt/,',-
I)n,i*, K"*t$t'hlt
Nr L,, i.rs EA" "
Name
sbfl Atrifuril'aa/
4<\(,^r-Y"'J,
iAh /rn, q hrh&L,
125 Pr,afap /**L
tn bo,[r<No,tM ,e+fi'{'
474 wstw^,,y-?u;\
4tx lb 2i /b*z {sP/;j
' Lrn &.",( lt ) c,e-t: SlCd jI
tZ67 R;,re' P,.,r,,'i Li.*
Address
"/^1*WU,
/"-/tk{f "
?/'k)/ (72"4il-&'
I
7/n
/rrfureTTnP-|c,,/1dz/)
h.Wra"'-kI
tuSignature
U V
/r/,sol t, p4^,
5vr9 h )5
in^it6l 'Ya[oc,.r *r-
Email
q
*/1
-U-c,o"
L &f4
(/'
(,-
I rr r-J,
G
County
g
-@o
j.'
Join
Petition: Oppositlon to the Sprlng Vafiey Ranch FUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalilion
The Spring Vallay Coalidon ls a community.based organization representing lhe
shared lnterests of E dlverse group of stakeholders who oppose lhe Spring Valley
Ranch planned development project The proposed development (a 5,91)0'acre
luxury, private golf coursd communlty conslsting primar$y of second homes) is
currenfly under review by Garfield County. We arc concerned lhat this
development wlll deetroy ihe unique rural character of our community by
interferipg with critlcal wildlife habltat, strainlng our already overburdened
lransportalion infrastructu?e, end urasllng up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negatlve lmpact on the Roaling Fork Valley.
Please slgn tha petition lo halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial PUD
Amendment.
11
l2
'*#f {r+wmFEH:5eil s.o*.s
r Scoto nnn
c
4
J
4
10
$
I
7
6
llame
6
?*
h,/,tt,ia
L,I ba
{,1
I,x-Lsextn ars,+
Address
l.D+te
)oilrJ
!3/[ow-r
q
l4t ul
w 1z>
si
o 1...
Email
t
I
.CDrt4
dE{ae €/Y
Asrrtrl{I
op,i" { g' ll;!.aa
L1
{.1
Counly
rl
t
l\
tl
(rt
t^
t"
Joln
L-''13 U4
Pelition: Gppositlon to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Arnendmen'i
Opposer: 9prlng Valhy Coalilion
The Spring Valley Coalltlon ls a community{ased organizallon representing tha
shared lnteresF of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose lhe Sprlng Valley
Rench planned development profect The proposed development {a 5,900"acre
luxury, private golf eourse community conelsiing primarlly of second homes| is
currently under review by Garfield County, We are concerned lhat lhis
development wlll destroy the unique rural character of our communify by
lnterfering wilh crltlcal wildlife habltat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infiastructur€, and wasling up tc {,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt wlll undoubtedly have a negatlve impact on the Roaring Fork Valley-
Flease sign the petillon to hali the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantlal PUD
Amendment-
:er*l!6#..l %fq#ft+l"t*"'?
(
Senn' ^u
12
t1
10
I
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
]rln^T"hn{,.u,*,tL.i
0{vrar.rrn ,.$ffi\m
Name
Sb5.r-t € ,h**-
l'
J
Address
."i
')4 .*frr,.fiu..czt -
Signature
\r}
J(
Email
th
Counly Join
13
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
;&ii
9can, ^z. --**.*'r*
12
11
10
9
8
7
b
5
4
to
2
1
?rl.*,*rrvQ^rV-,r,r
Tc.-t 'Qdr;ns.n
Cwcf ,*6'hlr'{5 hantn 5r^r*e"re1
{,^ Lft&v&no,
Fv^^ &rrun
(eA Bev,1g
lrlralf e u
t/fu,vtt twfiP
Kr*rbpcu
SPENCr.
Name
LLar &nJ, uriV {"1
^t&t,
b G;vrr G* B-s-lV {a
lEd I frJ,'s ,{ft}ieA. r,o,
4l Da,^,tcL b. *to?J^?r'"
w{b I (o2-
.ro3 5 )""r St-
&.h'^J-<lt C 0
Ig iLTS
Ta'll CP loo r',
( *(6a;:D*Le Lo Btozq
z1s oaK €..- R!
(r'.R$spj[Ara-,CO $UZ3
Address
v d
'4.W/4
"Jn,6u
,4 -{//ht{uL tfu,nq
Signature
-
6{if{r"o-t?^{VlerCo @,1rnctil.1,7'
o Co
tl rS+
Shart 1p4fftp,1c6ay61< 6^ . (ot1.
lcaaylyo*rgWL1fi ,s,
rk-bide@ l;,re. cctA
leJbnnre 1 G.1n.^;\, co^1
fr,tv\c>ti il.* Qz67*u'i l'c''n
g,"r.tr.\t,;;[o enq.6.;iAou>
Email
4
Coty Join
n
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. ltwill undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment-
8**o
--r*-f.,''r-
12
1',l
10
I
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Sorn l-pwrq
(-s^^.t- (2V- ^r
bzu ut-:fo d,+1)
(.o^c \zraro-e-
fiXL" (t"alr'l
$c'. i{,cct, "c r I I tlsnr
Name
kfl ?pddryro 9NA
[o5{ LG \-t,\ 1--.-Lo*9-1.-
'3ttS.2,6kd*tod aeL
.#uffii?ru*
S qtt 6 raula"l. D-
C.*a^tata- c4 glbL)
?C.- i-.er..,/-,.7t Lort s
Cr-,r-u:cr tieiU (f - t
Address
e PLUW
uGo,Y)4rr#b
gt'bl
-i r -'.
(r\, ) +]/
Signature
S r;,talo -, " 8d Oyal^oo.col
f-o*^b- p c-o\ {,r** e ( -^; \L.6
v I
lre-r.lr-st. tuetfilY o /
9Iq4'u lo , tnn-ri.;lA-[tato
.." .\
s&11", .ctd)Arl6r*il ..
i^L>C.;rarvi-lNG 6:[.rn: r \
Email
At.Cl.t
-a.,& c
.oM
Coty
vl
Join
G
\t
\t"O'Nlopposition
to the Spring Valtey Ranch pUD Amendment
'"-Oppo$el{ Sprin g Valley Goalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^z
- ^:*.qi^:'
-
I
3
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
12
11
10
I
'@r )
soc,i,, L'^'")u-
?rcw f^Ai\,u
Name
f,Atlrr r,rI t? o\rl,,l,
[b0,,', [ ,,.rn()4iw(
' {ri}-,'l , ietJ''d,
io du" , (C d-'-&.-
^-"(1*
i) ti -i u'vti,f Gl^,
AFtJI'oR rf 5r r..i:
Q' ,^--\'v L9
Address
I
4u lv',/^'n \lr. (',k'(',"'9(
,-J-*r-0
il
,6Y)r- I u,,.,i.oit 77 -!,,ti;'i
I l, L)i ,i fr,t i/q- /
lr
7402"'
o
ir-rt_
t// lv'f'/ I
iJ,F^&.-
Signature
c.
l, [ ;,. *ii olr 5"1f,i1,,n..,,;,.
iakultlr,,kg wl*/,hrL
J ,l
\--"u / tt/.tl ",
i!. (
fl?,.--c?.o-f {i\r.yI '' -r
',1
t,r,Jj)rliag,p,ae/-G/
. l-
Email
(r ; I
I
Ati! i' t\'u
. I{l
Coty
" {btal
\l
\.-
.i>
Join
Ar\
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
;.Jj!i:' I *i .
8*^z
-_#r*
I
12
11
10
9
oI
7
6
5
4
a
2
1 ,l
-t frf.\
'r\
-r
.',{Nt-t -\ .* \,-
Name
t3i,[ HtflK;iff.fib,
< i-ii i
'--L
/
. /'*..1
' \J-
vt\-/
Address
:J
,/7
./
Siqnature-,'
/'i
J
c-[r
\-
,r i; u tr"- 1
- tJ
/-r',\-1r.s''"-t '\-
Email Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. It will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
+a,n
8*^z
*:d":-$E
I
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
a
2
1
Name
le,t /*la*1-Address
t(( /r. fl#sl- CW Co
sig re it
b
J-/r{ I('t'
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^z
-,.,--+G
I
12
11
'10
I
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
J oatti l;,tbrnlL
t
{pA Ro,w,\r."j
Oas,,). e7-,rnwta-
W{Ai'oV,'
"m#klk
Attt
\rr\thru^"\n lrW,^l
Jturoa Q+,otrnr*
t\ra*Q*^'l\or^ 9u *3a
loro/on &oL , *r4'wwdr Dr,
O
rA u\ts-q (,^ ,r:?l R'r
["Sl bl"*b$ ,\'rn- tlt\,.L{,6L C*r,(1. r,q
tro a
J(lSo Coo,r''r+ R$ t gg
11€
Address
lrrtt) 7ftt4J'il
J ?z4mtT <brrt-
ItbD RrpA. cv.e-a,LW
G [.-,",l
6ug| trlu,,a lr 6[.-a
t
b\nL,'fe\',M,ff
:///) {L.n
re
/fu^6L
Lt --(\',t(
',,,.r8 q
'5#amz-
/"il:7,il--
\-J
J: C$RIb\ <rer^O @c"l'rtr'u-'
Co'v\
\J
S,l;rt-y tt {rAC
Email
(t?,
6
\t J
zr6>1^^i,') c6^
)-tA
I 11 1 t h p{O c, yt^<.t I. r-, *
vvP'l]
6^.(''lJ
.[:rto4
Gnte.A)
2
Coty
C*6U
Join
ii
F
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
-i'
-..',.i
- .rr' I.-. - |
-l I
8*^z
;qJf,.^b
12
11
10
I
8
7
6
5
4
J
2
1 F(rNd
woufu&-
Name
lao9 c^-v<d-t\rt,s re
ct() ^
lxiaqts u,,'
Address Signature
dd-.F1 ',r.u
I c'( cr^d ' c
L\/
() tv\--
Email Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
!vi!-:'.
'- 'lr,:,\,,:-- i:..}a-!-t+- r>--,
-:-i
8*^o
-{#r1-
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
I
5
4
a
2
1
5a s*^ /2/, 'r.---
D;dK,/o,-
I ln Lt [+^(t3
-hpo t-V,Pnr4
i4u,\-^
i r.,-j
Nllr,n
Name
?0 r /uA rJ 1. Cl*/e-
€tK 'il <a., t- ffi u/
t Q;f .d*t'-
\ ,lu U*':>{ 7,Lrie
C.<f ,ll" vviu.Q'
Address
,.,r/z.*,'.^
r",/[2>
Y/ lt,'t/ // l_<
€V{tZu^'1
C -tu
Signature
- ftri, U/, E'-frr*4 r ('?a.1
fi 6
l: o \ r- ,r,\c c,r. :l'vrc'cl, i 3.il
",\ qrv.rgn t c(-,,v]
CI Q rhr.ir- (c,rr4C,'-r.
Email
h
fo
G
Coty Join
Wi
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
_.rr-t.,- _
.
8*^z
"t#-+-
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
_1
\( ny,1
, hr,vv'vCp*'(Ja,
Name
rrqq c (ir j'- '
lc 75 (tur, /u*1, dy
G/r,*t-t4 5,tr.iva< .to 46bl
Address
/--F-+-
Signature
n
-l.1ei , ,,-.-t-a*71 Qr,-o1",
i
Email Goty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County, We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. It will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
::: .^ -.. -.1;': ^ -' .- ;,..,':'r. .:9.'::
EI
8*^o
--rsF-\*
x
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
12
11
10
I
8
'>\rurJ
t'(, *,r Vt),,^ o
Name
14 b./l- V r- ,- { I
Yv,^ hflutq
.!t:r .ir't;
l
"tloru,'ta
XorJ
8,.]
fu LIgb ll""ailpe^--Gu)< ?l(,0 I
Address
zztT t.\ ;Ll
417 KIq Dr
;lrj!' 6,.. /l rl .4,-,t 1'r,,'t,r't,.iti'
a. i' t. f, :,
6lr iv\<-(. R$4,(heB I
aj(
V
r
Signature
I n
W "-t(Cl t^,a (h, t'-.,Y,
y^>- ^bz7j
"z(i.".,(--;i,>l),-' . , i t- ,. 1,,...,. , t. ..,.. v.r.,_
'''; )".,'l'-r1 .- [g -ir.I
I!-
4r'{"tvyyd*f^t ,{
/'girron' l^a*bfCqe:(c , c^--a,-.+-- -* .uA
Email Coty
C-
F
{, .-'
rl
G
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
--g"r-
12
11
't0
o
8
7
6
5
4
2
1 lal tUltrtdt--
Name
Lg v',\)b<( q &-t'1,
6"nc*\& Srrr<t
Address
V;J, i'l L^
Signature
AvL.on"s u &t(accala
Email Coty Join
petition : o pposition r(/#.e m, MJ6 ^';*
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
dment
i.'TF-'.:+:tw4;-i$$Atiffi ii:-' :ifr:r"
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County, We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
-;t*'':-
I
12
8
7
6
5
4
t
2
1
11
10
9
/'y1/ //,,/^
4- d((){* i\
ovLll\A
--^<Ll
Name
.-dtil ! l'lqiff -
),ffitril^l qnUnB.;
VJl)NEr,) WLAALL
'8,\^r-T'1"Gnt,[, J-<L
kl\,,t %rlxs
D qft t <, a-- rk<-({
C +l r.*q-f
f,*vY*1y'*ar 8-,2
7 ]cq 5p, x^J..,' $oV Qt .- \iJ,-i- A iDt\J/)q/*{ th-
4tt 31"'{ St Gi,._r(
3,\ € Soo,.o C +
6 vr;a
Lt kL llc,nt'n.l .P;
Address
) \ tr i\c, \ i n-{1 i)!16ygt956r,4
{'rL ?trpLY ?Fb'C q\tp73
f tt (€M,l ,L,Mt gb"J
y g l N4, _ n" C..rLo urln {o
4<t fuo*5{L,{J,"
(A C,r.rRrirl *rt 1r,l*,,t,t
Q;a'-( 5 gi run-tcr1'go1 o4
L\nJrI (a'
()
l
^
Signature
dt^^*U ?z-'n+^-Ll1'aa
E-f{;N
4
L
SnJu', (*{J (",r{*^,it., *^
Email
ia ! f 15, Tal Q Jvn at I ,en
,i;,.J ^vr Lz9c1,t"[1 4G)r.;'u:.[
Y{uw6-tt ,vfr t-r/\
l ro.l @ ns'n, ca pt
$ rW sO 16 I rrtarMa r \. r \w\
t-KO* e(((o e c*^1.c,'\...i-,
t triYl.., e=c"^..^ <l n,,.+-
0.*V re3 r n.r o0g
0t h,rzr ,L r irrvr
/#" /"r/'fr /]/n< ,,.^
Ce,ri.tlr\
Jcf
Li .'niDS<(
ta.r,-rt.z"^
Srdirii
Go4",J
Coty
E1e
.t :iY Fa'v 1',
QrlW{vr
rf,
x
Join
UU
,P
U
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. It will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
--{Efl-
T
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
lq,t , lii
t' -,, i
'(.2 t; r LA(9
t ip t,ir '!,,'." "-,-,.
ilntt'E
t1
(. .C^ .t, \h., ,.i*
.) /./ .)
C tI in ,,' /i! ,i l,o,'
iVifk, [n,r f forq
,t
\*./{ L^*; frw:i.
Name
Krl ll 1',,ffit,
z
-L;t t 9., - fi*+ Y./: LI'I'"
,l
;, k'ir-1 i l) lr r.,:
..1, ^ ,.
( '/'i ,)i , .{
it lr, ,i( "\, \{ J ) \::
v
f,), t7frt,+;.J{, ,, ,, Sl (tr
)< i:-. /{'r ,\,i :l-o !;r \^r
(.t'/i\ / I " i r{ i r r,fr' {-t/
Cr( .;' lrt, r,tr,lq lr-' ('it 4.{t.>-
lt( Lr(-F^rqi{ (^,.'
( ,, (r n., , ,,.,,..- ,i( <' l) : 't ,' ,' t.
Addresst$t- stt;*\fufiU..
.-" /,/)ia\
.--, 1
(<,i l*.' t, /r..'\lr. i t'r..
II /:
ll k \-, /'.ili,4Liltr /tq/r-
)^rr?,L-{
t'<- |
.,tr/ t/r-2.11.* ' "
/^t
; -F ..;li I :r fl ,.,.2\
M]" F ; ){.i ,tl -',n eit. * 4
€ Q iC [c*... G. (,' ,r,1,Asi',, I
4-;,,tsktL, 'rt++ i,
-r -j ,;i-Fnlr.,u{o141 c,\'r
11ylfut nv,l lbt't.,'3 ?, t ,,rr, t,
f
,--,1 k ou"lm *., t bs\',,..,. r\. ",,ruu-.
Email'{-3111i + l
\9-\!1., :u"
:Pt-,.'.:r,
(-Lt
'-- t '''y'2'x
/:.- lr r
1F) v-
Coty
.-ar,4ffi
\
-1
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
i$ii" "
I
8*^z
--e?A
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
a
2
1
\
[or, \ Soa'uH,,
6-\\(t,,\bl^xz^
IlVlu* h'-u-r
n/\ i v\e-o
Name
)
rc4 Ab5 ?V4 n*;ffi
xs jx1
(L"u<tXl'15 rth
lo MeaaoO I c,.v\z
eV^"d5?v4
Address
/I\'Q6"JJ*-
l/u-
M^Jsl- il^\V\o6_-
Signature
qpit[<cn:c,o!rgr1o
fi? Vte6tzvf6u I
Email
.\c..-t, CJ
r
bnq
Coty
) Llr-)r
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
I
8"on rhL
12
11
10
I
8
7
b
5
4
tJ
2
1
trlC llnr;O/rt
),&c hL v'[t-AOtiL
F\lP{ <hGp,,q^
V ni\flfu r[Nus/n^{
"^nd- Mr^,wvr:
Stle Mrrvrx.,*
t\rrni c r^ orra,kl'
Gahv B",[0.
Name
P-+ w4t3 on (^r^ehf|
([ \ CW(reu ?-tnan ?0.
gEtsuil{"f\ Atu c,.rg
zszwa.( rL*i/.(naY/rr. Qll,
Le4w*k C+ A.aw,Co
252-t,Mt)rw,n k Q.\ Gu0s'co
Ri€re
l15q Fos[ I 9lh rro.l c.o
crWS.Co
I So..e' {i=\J r-3lz
Address
?w
+{fred/
4{r,o.,hwl\-
W-
't
f\prL( o,--O.
Signature
ln
\
(
ttll (t ,pPlaF 6Qa,'I
o C
lra nztt i 1\q&coLns :
5Vq7/"111
fY1v,?h r4d I p f oG)o, nn., t,*
\,,
\
0ue{ edoDrno,tA( OSp ,
Email
Al
'L- C /tl/\-
6^ G(
/xF-.t
&?\w
LP
6R
G
Coty
6e
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
Sto"
..\": -tr -
8*^z
,-_:#^-
'o[n(-
I
12
11
10
9
8
7
I
5
4
3
2
1
sr;Lto-<
fi,n [Y1<,txz,<lao r
il)el,ttu Wuzauv
Name
I |.,
7n? lt".L * aE rf>
6=+ t tQ. r*t [4^l
O'fffmV &/a,,'u'o.d rt.uf-
+o> ^eLE:::- J
4ot frxrArq uUl
ht-p,atalsp-1tfrs
?42,1 H^gt lr,ry AF
Gla^uJud u Sfe'a{, Lrj
Address
u 'nrf -v (-/"rfZlzrtzp
]-fuer-9f,1^,--+__
fK_74til*" h-
U/r@r,
Signature
I t- v4 vlvva
!\
J.<Sil- '
lmew?z@qnq.t/. (d?v
nautht"d'qj n4-;1.@-
ut nl u- +l \l*-q Q g,"o,' | {o ^
Email
6K
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
)nb "
8*^o
2
1
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
n .,..\d-. V.C I
Wil(v
nn/i .)\U
l1
Name
|,\.rou r,^.na- F\Jir,
f),,1,^^. 4'otk{
ff-C,tY t4f
Bol..o'n
frCIa4
',3f fClt
41
q_-
clt-.uin
/dn,'^*fi rrl^,il
-<a r,rzi r\ln
"'r.^,,-o-\;A-u F."4o..nt
Ioq).\irt\i uiInri t ;(it I
/" fi-, f, ,, r,-cf*ffi t--..
t,l
..1 .1lu4 0.,n P',:.'in ( I
Address
ECq G."-Gt A*.e Gct'>ECc,i
\toi\ ixari,\ \r,o i"\pr^u,"iii
0 qf.", fr f ,it| twt(. u*/i<y
Itl .?,t,', ! t:
?, [,]+UJ
?i?1 q)ctd AJ r1i,?l f h ,,
\ t2-7 !k6d6)i*h4F
i o u"*
,,)
I Qi\IH-.A-'rt t - )'-,\, ,, 1'\'
lt .'..')dr,f
lln r:(' rr!n-.,-n,,.. 4,[,r.--,'. ^
li'iA V:1,,,,,"C't)a\r\, ,' 1)
n --rr./)-.rlt --.s, "y'.
lLi L,i
Gdn-/h?
:
Signature
ffi:ti.-7 -
L-# 7e
{
.rl,l,',' t: {5 L.1r''tr:;'L-L'\
!
. .,,,..... ^. ,-,. /1'.I L:t .' .l:i'!{ - L- t-/i.L\_^- ii L:'/ [r
Email
-r. '. .t1 . \J
\i..rc;,L\oi ,,i,{ ,t,,, \ ), ,r\,r!';:l
ji l.)I
t::l
i r, r !ii l_ i;i{6, ry : 1{r
'J \l
' ','/. t I ^[r,.';.r {l l-. (- t( F.^it tl-lt I
&.1 r^rP;.,!i- Q,r1,€ qr*,.'\,-,,""
.9,c{tLCG3*{* i Ce-r
1/'lt
Coty
G.,,J"i
4 v.{r.p
G'rc\'.q11
-LrS'efd
>i(r
G
b
Join
'*^l
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
-t'{p*
r
8*^z
-.*sFFu
'12
11
10
o
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
l)
i \€Na ri r+'\
\, sa Giandot
/1M'nwu ?nh,t *
Name
V
eD S,-!'4pr'n14n A - 6 tD,\
(J//Td&/trilmhH-
6 z).Qlnc-,p $^,r l.l ,
'r 5fit j.Golu^ A{
$\X*S*}-*
-PvE- ?q$. K&
Ft)ZXt mrua-ut //', A//a. \
73
eor &'/r*J )ue
Address
(/
Signature
J v
ti,l rts64d,-*,7*
@pitfy
'hegfM*muJl vU&A > tln ^,w
Sche errt V63()nr*-"|
\N*SNn
l
\ rSa
ntJghaar,^c 3 ft) r,nh,ne .-f zrr,v
Email
hrt ,o
,M,na
/
{l
:*.,-G
-\
a
G
,h
Coty
h
K
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The Spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
I
I
S**z
+{#'\-
,r... .,-_--.t i t-.,iii:*:r-_-r, -:'-. '_+.. ;
12
11
10
o
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I
H",to'r.{^n \, rin"v^rr,i,-
f.,rk, il;alu',
ilr^rncit rr Srtrrrtmt
A"(- "...lri fdrh
Ka&ntnY'+r
\\ihii{ I uiA.;
rTA*i Wlua,tt
$vruf( {ru
\r s.,lr. k f,,r 1,,,,
\r\
)t ""-- lJo-'[ \ et
9\ri a *r,* S*^o.i,c\ "li
Name
;az cfl r rr * ,+ ,Yr, (
It oo C,e ri,i br.g,r,;{"|
fi,boo ct,tn?+ fucA ii'i :iili:
74O{4 Hi,ri.r- N)c (.a,
rv:Qktk I /2 DAi a; l| r'n
(,ilqt (..)ifr-p,'tl,r-(L 1 \9.,-\
41h Giacl'-Sr trri \n Da,lr
(hv1 ( o Aa' CAf- 6ttus
\?V U-dd &\R c'us
Zas G*,* P.\-
1o I V,.) QooA"
k al \..\uh S it1 , CC
Address
, {-_-// ./l/--'fti?'\
,Ut'y*)rldD?P
'%uoru.o"'
Q
[7AA^*-
L\V)nM{q,/r.49.-,q'\
Signature
n*nl),... -d,x;4,,nvnj,n
ScvrcifuLfu, gc}tvw)t
\Az,cr^r,^.no.L\l? \ F qNd'\
* i ldie:&5 f, .,',.r l,;la,-J "m'{v, r i,. )
, -- t -
hsG\Jr,l N+Ail\\ri r nJi\h.,tf[l
{," r1 o *, - A ni *G<^$In ; {, r,o
,TJ J
Vt1 y; 1 L)wt1) "' fiurj, t
it., *.r.Jicts.o nin n..,.,*'l .r
A E.r, ;l,t: v- /zz.'( av,\ntn
)t,s ; r c-u.K..,ro{r.- Ubu*|,,,.
i(-ll
-;rr-^ 0 1A1 Ii'$ r,;--,1 ( r.",
3n c"*{trr - SVir{ ii,",l
\ ci\uc e
c0 n4
Email
9,^[At'li
l,*'rF,'lrlt
f /t(Y-t
,|
,"5-4Jfl-
c,"w\
&,oU
G^'th.t{
Crrrt{,$
--/.7 .
4 u,.d
t,'3*
Coty
v'
€*-.
d+
11
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
.;4*
, ii.._:!S:r.
8*^z
-:#:rr-
1
4
3 o
2
7
6
5
12
11
10
q
I
'4f9-/J'-n
il-,f,^A.tlJ
Name
Frtu> A<D&s'-
Vurr r,
V*{. t{ vftsnn
T,tl Qu,,'"-h"fu
n'a,J?3'^o]",*tt
L,,elJ-.| ii,'!u s-*
rt
,t -, L 4 i
1 LY J:'r :l',v.t., l-r\V. + +
V{nc,- \'\ubi\l
.-rrn* ktislw
u--L*(&
Address
,
605 W 4+,{"pt t4a
5 )'c oW2r4FW)
' I'|-gL l,^a.q * DA
s7{ eAlsrnl-rroE{'d,
'ADg (Bn*Q Ql,
lr
2O1 C-A^rCv.fV
(Pl lg Kcndatt
Crrf H'1ir"fir-<-a+ L, c\e,,,
,
i ]T ) 4, ...,in-, .rJ ii:
L'7-,LAitr
(^1^
(
o--t{qU4-^
c
a/^/rZfu@b
Signature
.,:{12),4-"W
/UAt^^rL
Ix 1,.
{wa ,'
I a r', dti{ oG*n *P ti
E Y}J
4b*J^*L e at)
Email
f c'i*lLr,,**!tcr^*t'r
lcvnar'tca,t\CIql\A\.r bM
uailnrr AMil- (r'1r.'
,!,"{rCl ,z/v-a , e,
yl
I
- Aun?1 )V Aq^;/.
"o,,,
Hftf uAL
fute
t'1
Gdr\tt
pt.
^
bnL
(^
F
G
ry/
E,ffi1'
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a eommunity-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
EI trl
8"*^z
--l$''r-
'l,2
11
10
9
8
7
b
5
4
3
2
1
C,t t<sn 1Jr^*Ju
l(*.0"'^,, '[ )*r^,
s hc}u,e [,{ril,'ir ll,t
HU nl^r,. t.,ii.nY.8
Cr'qh"; fli,,t
Mn,trn Firnrrrr
DNr -leuv(
I r,n, f lores
Lut,/ r, r, So.
k n i*Dciircr,xQ
€*,lq kt"V
Jtir.0rr*nU6,
Name
aw lLT)Sil;q rr"" r+(
/-[-o N'T*ruofi,,ll
u l-,O{{ \,, 'L,ief+-i-rr,
-, CJt +(
7a.g (: , t-t^ ,. r h,/c (*&
\K'11 ( V t7r1 or\ to
300 WtiKchn \)<l " G i, Co
151 ilJ. \,u+t 5r srrr,e,.
'\i^\:f'>.n ca , Lriz'*,,r-sk\r, f.
aii: <
SoG.r,i e.--1-t . Ci,,-!
'V qq ('ciy}tq
.*- A i,.h r,,
Vn l[21 Br-V
f ,,rfh f o
1q4 C-A<ftL V fttiE l
BL'J+A Nr#tirz c,o
Address
A^,Y
drt /t /{r ,
UI' U '1'-,Qtt-tr^t
Vtr"tr?:f F,9n,//
'[(-(Xy"/Urtr'h,W*"
/" - 7t_
#^s,<4641C=
{[\fA"--^.,.f, .-[,
{(^ltrt
A-,lJ-. -tqr "ft{"
Signature
--,"kd*c\ne-M! f\'
,1.,.
'cx4'*'-
W t t ti \ ( ya,"r,rzu, (eLur-
eLli"., <a{/ € LI^o,\ .(.^n
ti,v,,t ,1,Vok*djs Q yu,l.
d,ttt, v inq t d-r€cckrzict
Email
C.N"kJi
C u:5
@w>
tlw
(d-L,
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Raneh planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
"_::.j . cf :,
I
8**o
-s@"u.
12
11
I
10
I
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I "u* VroJ^
lrh..l^ r**J,,^ ,t /-,,-o
C*._'^ N\exa^i}
'[\ i .t - oi hur. ie ,o
4,r{f,o- ,/t r; <
hL;l l^.
CJnc"-lej .1id,cK
/
STGJ.FSHure
Ab"4 /,,rdv-
4,9;il lJ,.kJ;
fu"ffirrrr,
LleliP,un*.
Name
tr{l6 c.ctnbg <d 131, c_ar,a
U
Lt ') ) l
\J {lo Bq^*$# Aue
3ti Va'h 0 rlve hwl
/ /t O flVeruls*,'0/1, GhA
114 hu,,tn tt klc, lrWS
-lrt( cas(Lt vnucel Lvh*/ ve -Att<t-t ?n,r-n t( C^t a
3\r- 5.r,+rr Nq6a.6,*t z
lzf '/rL(fuf Dl6n/. zAsJJ,,u ?fl G
/ 7g6< il,,,,n 97 n:ffi:L
)Q5V,e u,r s.
'=/-a
Ca
Address
\-i h rk^-
VAyr*x.{",, olru
4;--\rssxs\t
ttt.t?,r h
I)aiffiu*.
-B*O*^"uY-
ryZ,e%-
612^;*
Signature
4^!
Email Goty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
'-*:;
r . -1.":
8**o
-{c#.r-
12
11
10
9
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-J
(p,\tv Lu,
ffiA ?nwD
U
0 ctLlr"^rnnu,\t;)nl
,l
lml ir,/hp;nr.
AAi-(**'\Ju
Name
Ia^'n .Sl,r"
Q-<r
))
6
irx h]^v WlC-\xl1
D
l$9 fuauw Lk pcu,rCqt{,^t
ZzS f,.rr.ll^'J "-+ lna oagl'lc
rcrlrnl ti'
I 01 t l\vehinqar Dr, bffi:ffi
Kt0 lL,n,r\,-\ ,*n!, /rS ,
rq *'t*#Oletro"o/,
aori A,c
f/.? /a, Srrr? rirM*
7-LMM/5*k
Address
Wm-i7ft
r-.
ff"Ls\,1,
"u
'.ffiiUl-a/-t i,a
Signature
^'l
Ix
lntfu
lA-
phrw,lk/ rc?,?pqwiLb
A[png*(k?-Ct\@ ct
Co/, //rtv7tOfroa,,o.t
Kcllrq h at^ sLd!"s luQ Xr\4:t,c-
J Le"Olos Ba@h"vro., I ,ca,
/*h,,tlY o o,-M,[ *
Gfi'rt;tolffiJ_-;r.,
l eel i e i o n L;ta@' na)0,,
welnorfio,-]!*.c.r\-
Email
,*aL -,
2
2lv
-Dtm
Coty
O/v
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
9mo, ^z..-:-a*-
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6
A- Ea,*.J/,zn
ileqonr V.rttqs6,p1
I
\6^L
Ga**r Zr-.tA
e-/
fr,l^ (ne*u
l/,!a,o', Jon t t
A"\w(Mdl
Name
/k
\,//04 c
/ Ae .tz,? c)=-n ^rz, AXf,Zi\
tno rr'.rutgltnfr C/ Aoi r
/%w4r'Lr
L|o fonnttnlo.\ 5[
' ltl W Wrt^.)u 6dE
3L6 P^,.K D. f.,/r",i;;
Z 1i
/>a
bno LAt mf Luao M0
///f cr zJ ?
s l/4, c6
t3otv P) UA<V I 6r1J,+1/663
Address
c
//,*z t'--^..
M
Signature
/
d:, /*:-g;!n,;*c-,,t
t*\
4r*ui t& nd,n \. corr
,I'oz.nntl'r-on\
ar3 t7
a/ee
h,?he<aryant
Email
4*L-
t 1
6,lad
c%q^G
I
q
6r<
Coty
/
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructuren and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^z
-"s$.1e
I
12
11
10
I
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
t
-11"-.u^\
'^;,)
ll
Nrny Q'"dl''^
Jr,fu*W
Name
U
TA (V<:ff\{kb
Vr
fiit, hc,^x ri
hj|/n 0[lr,*
ZAfUSltvctz
\q
1t 4tCoR&
s/u 64 il4, /
3tz+ ( o va t74 n)aft"#i1
L57 Q-s'r^\0 . {L 'x1<' , Lo
fu ficr ZlSto
6Ursr co S lUo t
Ito t S [ep \e.As La.
cw> co, f,t6ot
Address
it zl BtilL* kt";;; <
tzbl 6-.^-Iryfa.
tta 6e.ra."+*A; , 2,r3'
&i-jI-YI/\
l-i"J:ey
tk^'\+o^
Signature
ohi/({dVlP
4.---a"4?r/
{laak i l-il@ oc^iloul< .ro
i1 co4@wQc
Email
'1
\
' grtp,rYLb,:L*t'ta'tl.
71\(r); ,sl l\ref da1ft)^X.,,*
S cru5Z ZooS D W^'l-c,--
oW
't 6
6
Coty
,^J
G
G
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
',,: *-&-
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-\^. <l.t[L
rnln*y l42o
Rrfuuto krs
k^t Hr4'dJ
Mrn:?qaea"\{rr
Me0&n- J s,r\dr;Mrn
Irlialru/at 10
MAa)LMo llo(CooVneL*
Op€rAP&tt'fP.LoN€
K,^"*xrJtzl.
\\ra\u€cul
Name
)ilt (\,.)u., L".[ t-
l.t -ig", 3{E GI,^-*l $6ri,a
5/t/rs D {n
?eb lY\q ,Z,I c ( o Etr,ot .
i7.J tra;oJ;ftj hn, rc'
52081 \.t6- a SfrreP"c"
Bo7 Oornf ,'v. Gtktao"allrrtrinlts . LO
l(
5b r?u/- PkFLc€ @D
&e_Boy\JtrJ*tE Co
4rc 9$.-d d:. 1;L\,bxtesz
Crs\oo
, 16 <\19?
lSto'l E, grc.l-t: tA (,;r,
lh/.rtYa (,o 7O-o t S'(
Address
pa-,/@5 \
,\x,*^'\il
ryt-F^^l'* -
\,IAMA
)n
1r""r7" X.,nuX
Signature
-p(a-
*.n.[\ ,\,,&ba-*
K*, I /-e.u / 1 tVaq'tq*csr1-
K^| e c qwr,^,rtvitVn\ . c o,n
i ^ - oe r^ ail'. <0fr
rvlaun bvr ds\on@,q,floi\ , [i]rc
fin i,,. Mtla uD LSegmai/. co n
vnatr V3 C ({ @ qma''(, Coryl
ga.rr 4a,l 06 € ea-rla.€ 3 ma i1 .
V-nica\e^?)bg Pya,<-b
lltiznd {a
Email
con-l
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed Spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
EI
8c*^z
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
aJ
2
1
'ta" ro (1t*5a?\
Kru
t
il+0,t
t/l
ot tfl4
,/>', ' ../' irl R'/..,. i,'.:'( /-./a7,r
1,1,-lli unrn(,,iA
*1); l\:, &r,iq, r
Ls* ?.k*s
4twxtt'.(
5o*tr.P
Name
/ltitt,r'- K.r',0,-
-( a'.4 -qaq 7zz,,
-l)*t1+ 5.4,J
JDsL (. I
.-l 5,riJ' /-"ilr,,J;L I
hrt drU-'n*U
<t3t v i'ioi LrtY \/:- C)A L<3\UL4
ZSY., E\c c\r:rl\e Lt
Pc' K.,x iiY (r,r+,-L4"
/ ri}P{t y'c .- V tr>4';<
itttut; 1
itlt T.,,,",-.. -i/tL.
i'?[, ,*c*1 lf+
-.-crV )-27r 2
n;.rL'
' I rb't3
13", l>az>-
14ci v; l)r, r-.*. T )ra':K)r
1 [ 7 t,af,r- i\fax,., R\)
toLQ. P6nal b1 c+
s.. [,L c,o 8[6 5c
uq.vhv*u to6- w
4{tSort9rW A glLL}
Address
01
f.
\\
t;lar(irtt.r*U,,
u tL4l./
t'w-4/,?i- "'4i,."LL.i
L6
Signature
he- -rtreiS, Iitr.izzr. e-a\tla"'r)4
Email
)k -\d;.";.
"\6, o,-r. h 6'
a*&t+)u4!fir^.^-,)
{, t i [\ u Ll Q \ t.?(<c**.I .r,"
c{<e^e-*_ o rrrr:rrl:/ctrf ,c.Tui
4rd,^{'.. 1c,{;-pr c.,-/ c.**
.t, S, x=,{a-/-r.',_} ),- r- (iit '..}. ,r
lll'1. f,l. c" talt..,;!t.,rr 71J1;t a7'7,'
(at lrrr ri.r, K,rl,l &r.l\l,l
l_
4tt n 45t-r-r 6J (,-ylt&tLr,
JcSs p 14 Al^{ Ot a.vtHl .C.svr
'>kf^4^;1 .selv61^ e' qf4tttl- est^
{:{-(
!r'(-(c',,
Ci,;4et
J.L
Coty
LT
Join
-?,\
Petltlon: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The Sprlng Valley Coalition ls a community.based organlzation representing the
shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course communlty consisting primarily of second
homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. we are concerned that
this devalopment will destroy the unique rural character of our communlty by
lnterferlng wlth crltlcalwlldllfe habltat, stralnlng our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negatlve lmpact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petltion to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
I
10
11
12
31clt ar\ krlq.
GtatrWcrr* \ :lf -r
3luC\,
flH
9cat" ^o
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
f,coq
Uru. ill
Lu.,t\ti
il
7n,,lntColb,,>
*nn'1&.t-
enat-e /r'r,t
5h,^, f A.J
- i t:,-7 t. t-t
"
,U?l
Name
h\tryru^d,"r.u (:i,nfuVtilr
.v
^''^,,
, "* r'in-.\Dc''t - *
/ AJ,w+ (-nu---
,4, \(l u, i t-
"2;ff &riR -V]' h n*"nb.Jo
?% Prf €,-*.t- .tr\
bc Lo\ ,n.,\ c*c GrLcnAr
I i t -fon-E Di< rfl,*f-:t
jo4? Cryrt, Lt .'
,n_J &^,-o^C, /, 1,_ i;,;-!
,7zo S'rt Fl-cl* i,
Address
it\r,u uu ii-ttl,'ti 141i,{an. h
I\{fl
"t
t/1 _sQi,i( . it't,I r.,:-
{xfr;to C-*i'T"cYfu
/// bcc>< .1n,ta,--
ldcb*Ml-ljlln"
tr *-l--
YkW''
c
\"
-.'/ fJntn^cl fi ne.^:
,t',
/ultot-ao/-{L,
A'.-ft.'1 ----A
(_-::
Signature
viirrr, oh, u( otwu I)f ,,.- r;1€ /'etl- "j i "Jrr..d
Email
U k'\r,,i,d,t"' L:trirn \e,fl"{ c; ril"ltii l
.J *lt'h,^i,,[rr*c'JLic ni
A,.^n,k* 1 .x,-e k'hn;.(
-,Jrr.,rn'.,4-- ii- Cr-i Li, u*]t:1
G.,'QI
Q ttn
L.=,k-
County
l}'u
/DTN'irr ,.i t
A;,ri-o,l
l-/
Join
t)"*^
\5 nciS, iO $"ffi\' tr,, r ?is.6agrnu
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
' -.:.
-*-"
S"on ^z
--Sr.-
I
7
6
5
4
2
1
12
11
10
o
8
/t
i ./tA)
'-,Li, tzr^ rt1!
\,ti;U.\-''
Name
,/t/^t s /",/"/i
)*w*u b^,
I
7,uon'u- &*;-u
Treeit>r.,o5n^o
4yfrbei'j--* 7v7 /4 I
\tr\r
'fcne Le\ln"a^
r ?rt/r/ </,/r, ./arur/-
wta 0n\o6Ao ,+,,,u
0 cp tit,* L ldAclM"'lu
'/ /r
a
ftc1r- U /, 1t;o.)| / I ','
( :l / vt' ;1 '.': it,.e
\r,,i'
t" lr
, /.,.
Address
j--s,7-
'\i !( b\o',s,r G
,C I LL]Gr"c., rqvt U6t*
| 3 /11 ]alot" \,{ (n,o',t"{
i6{R)
lbbk.aqt Lk" K) t,&6zt
\q-lr "ct <q fi4,lhL e,^6,, ffir
")to/
6 a
,/L/
V
lr
4 A-ryA, }za:o
Signature
A
L/,.
"*I 'ii,'u i,li,,li, ,.,
Itl ,)nAF6trn,rri
t J U
t t\i U^/^-. (,\itt l,(
(brert
h lze
/73
o
D o e
i:l<'t ii - ; -'r1))J. O-it
S [-v i t - i, - *.;'.-.fl C .;ri[,r
Email
I gol,-,ir,r16Sur;'C [,r4t
r,1
r)' i'u'*
:\, (t'i, )
Coty
, Mvn
)
Join
G l,t)
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. It will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
-.t'.'+i, t- . .-: 1',"-*. ,'i{eii
8"or" ^z
-:u3t-
12
11 _
10
o
8
7
6
5
4
a
2
1
f,r,bi ltl
)
c-1
4 I
r{\\ .* { r '3 rr,. ff-\\
\-
1 ,,+;Anlnv./,,r/
l.
fr*l*
Name
'\ i (,a lW-r
\{
L/4cr' I ,,-
'V4L' (lur'rLbu io rl
\
L
/o e- c Y,)1'u f) rta l
4\ iy\.-* d.. ( \ ,f -* v.,
- ? r n).. ^ ., .. ^. -.',1 ..) /-L | | U (r .J rcx--
, -) i I
I oltz LULret_t p a
7 L l, 0un ;o-.- ) v-
Aq-\L1tu rr\,.LuUKl
Address
\
\
"l_L-
K/A
Signature
/-zz " irl,-t,.^, 3 r^'i.\r*{,Jo
7, -\_/ " --:--l-,(), ( u(t li d,\ .t) ct , rt n
a
\i
Lr?€
\a\o \(
-/171.0
y/u, I t pr",*f.,
a-\;I
jE--t .L ']a,a\,Ar^n
) ',nbiqi3\ur1@
qnor\
Email
Y4l'
L.-I Liz''r"
.t:tt\ '( r.
-^0
I
:
L t/.. '/
Coty Join
#
Petltlon: Opposltion to the Sprlng Valley Ranch PUD Amandment
Opposer: $pring Valley Coalition
The Spring Valley Goalltion is a community-based organization representing the
shared interests of a dlverse group of stakeholders who oppose the Spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed deveropment {a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of second
homes) is currently under review by Garfield county. we are concerned that
this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community by
lnterferlng wlth crltlcalwlldllfe habltat, stralnlng our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wastlng up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petltion to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch Substantial
PUD Amendment.
I
10
11
12
-1).'
8*^n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
H *
*LulJ d letru
'!A ,-., z) rt
)u*Q "J*J
Lvt tr,.t[.t{"
'fir:,,4 L*rrl-,
Name
(lo.u*,I- \,r., :*-
i-,,1r,r,, I1\r,r,l i,,tr
['Un,,.. !rl.tiu* r
//v,, I: ,u, (( ,
B, b L, Ie ^ ,.i..
,,") ,; ^ b., n.n , l[ 1
',+5 L+h\.t!,4 C,,:!6 (..ur.'.A$k
:;"i'7 u., (.''-(l f;t,,.;-pL-1- 1.1.e tt11:4.;.6J.'-9Pr ;,-
Address
i\ c c l.4t 1i;' ii is i.A B I
l3i; t1t J:- n.r r.r (-'3
// t(;.\/'-. u //,r/",
li l*r it u,ir ?iilt i{:
{ts- t,'r,u <i'i r (ik"iii,.i iir'f':,
tr tbTztj{{l'i.-t-Lr*-.- ir
L.t,- l>,-.r -.d..L-(C
, ,tr C., It-"u^ * .* , '.- L6'ilq f .,i,
*'f',':..t,.1 ,2-tci LI?w.lt^J .,1 ,<
-i i CLlr,,\ ,.-,i /-^r-,1 t:r
4
Signature
i t.
l,,.\,X -- \'\ -----ttt, Lt] tL' r'L '\'L ,-
r.\",\
.,. , ) d..a_
G- ,K.t'-7' ( -L'
':,\-:?
tX''-7" . -+-t-.|+)/ eq-
tE
-,:\-.^r; r-V--*j
Email
\
V
Gounty
t/
?'t
l/
;.f
Lz":'
L-'
,/
Join
v'fl 1,otf*'.1*
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^o
.. __c*\L
12
11
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10(
I
(
L*ru \a\:o,r
Name
Vrn ,,ll t'/qt
Awa0il$ttostw
Gratp Nii\ssrln-,,
( Iru *in^rF"^.\$*,
A':nr* frun.
A*.,t1 tlk o,,r,tjrv1.,- n
?of,.,,,,n k
Tefr14
a rL^Ar?L90A
/-€*Hz
L\ l? fin ,++
t5 I ot c\tx,
c4 vrh / /,'J
(-ta to
6l bot
LD hidte,l A,alrut G"ils. Co P lhLtl
Address
to i U, rliFP Lb.to t /t^,! 'i.c> t
Tll- (rAV (ii\..r hli,tr nxF
ih V frrMq.fitlt $a
\t\ ;E
\a,n*c^to.v ci{^rtt-
l,,q
q tntr"eY .A(q'
g tSS L? L,Li rzL754r,
tS l osoh*-A i .n "
{^r^}^[*
V
'l/rn, 'n/?'f'1.----
4a?
Signature
Ina,W$&i
V,jLn tlgcr'nnr"\; Qrt O r: nn ri []
krnW"Yt fruw"tt#-r
Ott A c,c,\., cr.,,^
hcvl s'. r:,4nril:surr 6'tl'fst
arr.Jnco, yvtalr . A\al-ca. r*.
f(ti. \ i r",., ti",..Q," *,n' I
fel9 , F.ith'l't @u,vril
laurflb?.col@W..q")
Email
r 6ar.
/ar
Coty
U<-'\
bw-
Cnr
]\h
r
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
-;,_
i"tL:
_i_ :, :i,.:;j::-;\:-j
\---I
._ \-
' "'i\: *-%
,r ie-J
. . -:.
'-" -:'.
i
:- : . l
8*^z
. -.*t'-x-
12
11
10
7
8
I
6
5
4
2
1
r
fl,lnl l+Jn*'
(nr* *rn.,ntA
4otr,k, A**,b"1(L
latr,! 1lf ,ol;;
Ctnn--- T),.=t-C
Ka*qun. Mr4lgrYk
6r/' 7r..,"
l. t. i
JUiLt[tit l'\t t5i,'
Name
5ll nl{r evcr rnl
Kt* Dra'4 YL 4t ' i,'
104 crt ,id-L, p
4ah Drru,r\," fi''-r
c'h,U
(-a @6 -t Ct At^4
2af7 -t [)ur Q''tt. /ri*
f; tr ,--;.,sJ1ez! J..tr.'c jii4tr ff,.
tJ ltLo,,^..",-- D,^ 0g'L;-[i-"-.-V-r..L,
l\j-U /\ 11vV ')r, t'J€\r- i..isL(r i: iLzlr'1-irt
,,1 7'l ( /r,c',tt/ ftJ ll ;='(,/
1;
I'.? i=, t*jf 'j\t1-.4 \ j
:u-r s! I \ j.-
Address
"# (W-/r---K
0
Mzn
L
Signature
lrV
u'riott(al'Vn / \ o ^ndrA, /r)i,4n
.tg Q
S0{qa^,
(i
Q;4,r'.t
lL\'-vit,L?. i'tt:'t,Ltlt | (.
{,:,;}J tt, \-€'z g;1y2o7..,,' .at- ttx
irt-*
Email
t ba2l
a"d
W.f
r.:aia
ir',1r;6;li
{;""-,"
l-f'rt l-r
Coty
l-/
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre Iuxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County, We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
.-:1 ---,
9mn ^z
...r -_+*L
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Adnir^'i p"*iL
hr,r,rn lprnhntrttL
#'^-,
I
Cr-1,,htoorr\-
Ano L, Gra{"i a
v&n t
n
\
D^l.l i.kilt
Un'*76fu?r
Name
$ot Cwrd.4rr".tt 0h
loLS W\d, ['1,,,r CI-,A
r!"- ;'t
qr,ln(;;LNV,F. kUL
taru Hr\ct- h* bt,9
611Nl +n *,retY
2oF d'$<4q fl1ring Dr
Tttig y',ouo*- il. b-Zot\'p'ts"tqP \r d7 ..
qt An,^- l;, rn (;.-
60?? fcn Lrrl \
Address
\rtlk,&+v
'9
9,CI",-^"{,"ffif
Signature
buh %\ns)
K
I
,L ri*
C1,rol1^vk @ \^oh"-".\
\,\Crcr t
r)
(
:
J,l A lt -rr. (4^ Qtuw,,l .tov
$u*l l"qC rrta-l ,erc1
Email
I
-\ fn
.11
.(1ctf
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
ir*le
8*^n
\
I
1
6
5
4
2
11
10
I
I
7
12
4
{^\
,1"o,l h t L,*o
L1 .rr0 eorrss
S;F"r^ er+
Name
Cfo,,n6u, /-r.alou
n
tl Tt4r.,tFEa.
flen,rl rEnla
6,,er; Teort-,c
lg3 rtUJort'"b'l
,-, 3 ?{/^ttr("^r,A^ br^./
n V0 Bou l|-tg {aqlp,
\\35 \+wb\
F{
?.o ,B"P tf,:r , k''f:J-
Address
llgs (R tLdt 6il 2
tlgs LetTq Gw:
15{ nt1, A;Ju)<)
/ foa ,a r tt"/rp 6ilsa,
a l0 Tt , t)^11* nffi'J+a'
ltMt ll/d(kW ri +
t-
\
)4
P_-...,
t
Signature
\\
IAnW
IC6+Jtu
6
Lh,
L
f OY
p.[+t-e,.r(grA
Email
\:/ Jtl
&
/Kr l- /ttt 4t
L4
)qrtro
w(
Coty
l
v/
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
i*gr,
8*^t
--': ..i{Gh
2
1
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
12
11 Vioo Y6rNl
{o tr{t I Goo\ r* r
)oot np\g!'ora
dt
lil$<qa,,cA
D'{4
.T
Jt(* dt^c/ ut
Vla,./t c-t/.r
Name
S)tbd,tdl(t/
Viv' Mor4rn<-z
tUq hl^,.,^, A,lr)-,.{
/.ar"i llrStf
t^u 6-n*l-*
J.J-)l^ Co*Fe.Aw Cr^rc_ ,
Itrt &-'1V 4\ L}q
'5jt7 Q,^Ar aD t5(
N/
)9ot Qpl^rr 0"r
lhtT l"nalnnlnrll
\tt{ $a'-'dK h-€-6?l
(./-
t/( C-1/th4 oLtc{(h-n4 r// c.a 716.t
Address
XS Po*o- /u\r>d,oo fru5
ty( Filkn ktt- 6,,!< _
lDS Ya S* bL,JS -
I '//
--Z ..AaArn^l
Signature
i
irJ iw\Y(tr wl
r2;n' l'.9 r f- D
5.^rr ao.ntrl"e t > g, g Sn
"tFtNEv @) SD p( rd.
Urtn
( ..l *,r @sr* f. ^.
wt--2
( otrelAtt
^q rs eJU-
4 , -, il La.yt
Email
.\ c*..pq,(sofh\@.a 6tK) r r n
kiwo sVtn', p ,l^+;t l*
.e olA2
l
\
C-
.,t. ct v
t t
€T
Clo
Coty
L4
Join
&
y4.t
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer; Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
,*#
8*^o
.:-4G-
a
2
1
8
7
6
5
4
12
11
10
I 1)^/*')^r/,;-
AhruLr $lrulttnr
V
%urt/ u uttl'",ta-
-)xc,t lilee,,,'^->
h c,rl"Wx"^rd
Je Vvq-tst rra
Name
J u,riH 6Nu lhq {t
Ann^ Nerr,l
t h ur("^d+,q,\ 'rv
{ororso,,rt, "'
Address
3 )q CrgaLDr.L-n-ICd?
"k ^ofiu (o'r.oororoS"at rrg
96 al6.r4 -OaeatL Ar
?o E6 s 14, ayl+OA A W,
lh)'q P'th'il, A\n,iltl Ml,
ft1fil',:rYxt'D ':{i,,?
?bz1
rA,vl- p Aaqpr
ftrfr/S
I-ovr\R'
C,,D tlft D I
af PrttcST Ca(h'rlfL
a:(" 8( e Ll
\1tAUaWAW GV
nseCntrrAru"l (,f ?]Xtr
S t"l A; ,Rr l,rtr-
3 a O-^ &,\ (\,L.,o', Z (
t*z/M-WkM
tb*
)*_is+
Signature
/t,4lalfr
WLLil-(l C,*-
rn
5 r,
lrt*, (r,n:r, e ret$Q(scz u .,.2, I
7M^1.
tu'rnr..I,UJL
?
I "..J" *-L t'qQ(A( ,*.,-,/ \'/
Email
U
I
,
^^^^k oerr4,TfA^ *^ i l.o^
JAt4/,/uJl &atqfl.a71-
Coty
'0n(
Nt
f4^.'
1b-E " I.
Gpa
4/4
(intrru,
Itq
'A/fr
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5'900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is eurrently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
\ocs+t J
1w-*+
t1...
I
8*^z
.--S-
12
11
10
I
8
7
6
5
4
tJ
2
1
t\)
f lPtng *rF{",,
0rln,
*^ur LeA;{
S<ttetdttc,t t*
SAn^,rAK+tll
//L*". \V"*J
V*,,U qn/k,,RBnnfis"
/n<r pra.n/ov
(\^lrr{l€oD
Srlwuee-
S,r"\\y K, 11.*
Name
0'1O\ t\^6>\aar>Sg9 +€ \\
!(qtrottp*tt/lt / rz sn /
Kao u..tl.s Q,nLl r.,[ r r, C
t3M pytk^'vfi3Zl^"tStp
7a c-o ilrrod*ra
2'{o\ h)I
L
Cha ,lctrrrl (;r
t, ,u t<'/o{k(/rrd,Y,
4"t 2z 4.
9o I JJ^l 5.{
Gt,rS
Address
:P
C/'---)
K:th
Signature
,'il{e^nq4fW5q-Bousp
o f-<zt-'t
E
/6"ro6nltpnod/nr" c,
V an\daa /g-P",tu;\
Email
r( GK
Gtt
C<
4fi
(*r, -
6*,
6aa
G(
C?A
Cotv
6e Join
..cat-7
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
I
8**z
-tas^1-
r.{:
2
1
12
11
10
9
I
7
6
5
4
I
A\o"a-t (-a.*A$J
4^" lh fodo^
flffiroere
T€ter^, S.-\
,
lia, t [,,e ilL*
/rn^;n 9,lru,,
t0Trl f),,,
Name
rl;/'
n- f Co .,.,.V, .^$ \ G ?
t7u ihl a,t
7o(o GJo^ F*'Lt ( c r
5Db Grc.etl (A,e,r,t-"c CoL
\
Luqq tIeLL
13t"2 h.",+l 6n
J(lLlA_Srq K t /14 Or
( IlL.lkiue', &ravd\(
Z{< aJn rJge Dr,i)&^*
Address
-YW'-L
)t"r( Lt (Lbol
44il,0c*
Lre,\ (' a I \
Signature
, lJn
(o
Se <':l-
5c-5*1,rh I $Qon-.- ^
Jsi hl e{ft) hulnno,
Email
-a-
/^\2rfi.
c{z
(-&^?A
q+ C
6ft
( rrrt ,
t^[, /'t o r.
c(
Coty
{Z
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley Goalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield Gounty. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
8*^z
- -4f*rr-
I
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
a
2
1
')n,lr hlnnn*y'
&ln,^Gnr 2rttn
t
G,g.x
YQ)
R6\rp\u--[>^ni(
Name
//&rl
tl
/r*h"d-},,rl,r.V*
iferq/qe!'Lfv rv/D*t.
I L
Itol ir noorrrro* Sran4 lr-
CO
llottt |dr
Ctt'bo* C*It, Lo
3 (o Gw
?t ev w Pcr.-rg cnY
5ily\ v.r Pirnc{-5n LJr 1GNS . c.r gt/n?), /
(-€-\\4
I ' .<r;:s -9.t . cb LitwUoA U,
ll,"trto{
I o 1 kr,:x:& rntr., bn ^ZCtuL.w-d-J"1, A 6tUzs
lr\
\
Address
A,CJfful,ft*
w
-r( \
a1 A^^it--
Signature
lblfutvnn rSanotlrlvt
n44t. Sc//rf//,r't( c (ttu2
a
lrnrJ'.Ie ,a-6w\
Jc(rilgg f ro t",,.fe
," aJ . (c*^ i/rIL(r ullcDa/'
CoPttt&!l\0,hfi4ctt-,
o
t I (
u"rl-ttnnloa It
(oCeqn ie
Email
/onJt /"
64<
lI<
&nt
GA{1
Crrn
f',,,1*-o
GAF
Go"L,.t
hcSzU
Coty Join
I
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructuren and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
'..-'*,i
. .E I I., i . -r- .:'!- _i
r- r.i\'!r.._,r-t!i - j. ,":-:.-:. r- .,.. ],i . 'r
8*^z
--reci-3.'\-
n
12
1 1
10
9
o
7
6
5
4
a
2
1
fu-*'rLrJ^- ?t,l, rt,i
/)t,rr? n r'tilk tlitrMt
U
.*hq*tL nn Fro,
'-lt otx Rvtri
YlJt thAtw?t
Ccxr,{u\,1}r ;"{.l
Q"n^wna.n \- ^.,"',*rtD'l(L
\ter\e tfit\rNo*J
Name
I
{$Z 8,"D4strtpt,F'*o A
J+r'o t*,,!.,CwV-Vt, fiur, !,Xiv
. QLf: /1t,t/r,t,! tti,'i t a t/rt.i/ iJ,,
) ia i,, '). rrl f\,-, ,
T4,'Btil 2'n- i',{ri
,-5>/
.J
-41[ c?wl lin (
Address
z*F-k
l/" J ,""-'Alv-
,/--? ,t-'t
I
!
Signature
\""
I Jr{.Jf
€aLzn@ r-t,t,v,ee-z
rt5C
."1
;' ll ?Ar;,1 \LLi/Llt" .g -\,WX
\;evctiude\and tlrA*rn,[lo'
Email
^ C rrtt
L (Cts
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed deveropment (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to hall the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
(
Sca^ *e
vQoL co
0tJ ,l,LLg ( eow(/
av €c Gr <Lf
f-
l\,,t5teL e
L 4o1I
hxk tlrtl U
^
0(2 (
I t r --
'leuLl,,.l^ LK l'4"**)rn. Prh, "lalo rn
D0A\e\o-Ktuerc^ Qm b.'-(o\c\ Aot 1tr tsnD c;-rir,te (o
Printed Name Street Address
1,4$r"'-'
\6
tn^{rL
Signature
gcL,,e;-(t
\zo o
14 -p7Ol 0 tt cr,{ cU\b
o-c-\ r \{ s KV"t,e @v1 ,VtCLI , Ldu
l.\oo, co,\
b 6.
(,I - Ca--t
JoinEmailCouE
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community{ased organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury private golf course communityr consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are
concerned that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our
community by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already
overburdened transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000
gallons of water per day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendmenl.
(
9eo* ^e
3
4
5
6
7
I
I
'r' 'mili h,,tha, ti- t€; rj f,i CAo le ,1
lot-t wL*el Circ.b\lV^o
0l'rr,o Gnrtgt L000 Dcwrrlry (b htss *f,at
lsos C. P-J t27 Crjt slr;t
Ker 370 o K.q CJ"bh
Cd-"&
V\rn"'rl \l-n ,r u 44u b I,
t' 'ltY Dr i4 9l{r,4
Printed Name Street Address
morLfflklt ,;o
,o?.,/J
2k-
.")L"---A
4
Signatyre ',,1
;(
C,lo^, rl Cro ,*tq-r("ca'n
lu Ary*'@ ,S-lJC
L@fr's,rtu1
ll<hn'/ 51r,">26 g, .g u, l - c ra
Email Co JoinE
eJ^9nw 0 a(
]-*lq @ e,<-nr"r) c,:--,..---
t.
Ae{n q
Vruo I
,Ce
10
Petition: opposition to the spring Valley Ranch puD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring Valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900'acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
EI
EI
8"or.
I
3
2
1
12
11
10
I
8
7
b
5
4
o.R
Dur',4 Bc,L, rri;
K;t SAo-,,n--,
iZNwtW+)
Jwt&,
Name
e1
t I,-lcit K
iflrr't- ttffir'en <
Iflorr.rin C)^lJo o.
Nac..rcV )WrWy
GAA oloo,n">^
+,\t 5 Ct l\ i
'J937 gY !/E
\3{tr cR l rJ
74t rtv. \rR
L7 / c 'Q,vq
al} & "l*. C-.V (
&vo2 Cn-lt L+ bto2
(4 (iua'slu^V ?I
laooo &"*.\ PryA l{ 5
"2{)L-,t"r4}aN Drc
I
Address
(/V\
Signature
91""^:d*rtla"
----N
cllr ' Jt b
AL5
?.tlr/L.L tt t
wz.9L2tt gqvw-il.a
{t J-i J
oJna,
w!a rc\vt q f
S k,r ie-e-r
7w &4A.a c
Cctq
LO
Email
c-rAl
),\
h
ttf.ga*
f ol^
r7
Coty
?a
1
Join
^ tL-
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our eommunity
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
r--j-:,.. '
i:i'::i:..i:.:--.-i -
': :-::,. ",- *r-r-.:....i J*'l' .: a
8*^n
-^gf**-
E
12
1'l
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
,
2
1
r'.
'rllll \. iri,'i'.
:'i 't'-'-
\. //: '' t ',t ,-'
ln ,t i I kt,, t ,'., ,.i
i', .i_:,,:" i' i\,
b
!'ii ,,, I
-ji!
t,..t-t' tl I
-.:t.t r'!
| \.t.. -
tal\, ( ,,i_t i..
' l'i I ,-.' tl;. tIJ
f,u,, tor
Name
-r b, "o,T,r(''
.J),'L [{.-
l.t,:
/, i; i t , , , i I ;1.:1../ L',
II i. , r* i i:
\
<A ) ZtL.nr,^ffiW
tb? €u6 9?FruO( De
I
I
tl
'I
I
3/5/ C0, U. //r
Address
\
l'' i'?VV
I ._.- - ,, : ".., ,. _-
. -t.l! .' ;- /',' ,'-l|',{A
I
AlW
",nTt"r. ,/.
: Li ti*] ;,tJL*:itl[ 1,,i,;.-1 f ,>-ri' ri-
t, ..i^ l.,t.i ,..'_ ,. l.-. I i
fi
\1 {< 0r
liro
I
(li ilf;
! r ,i ,:
tu
Email
' i '..1;: ;i-
6 '1.
IL{:
Coty
)id.
'J l-i
Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch pUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Coalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
'ir{'
'r:, :3;|;r,: idrl:€l{i::
'''J,1:iri: '' ir'l-
'_ .-a?
... .. r._.;:i-": I
-,,i-,-; rel--'lii;-' :l
I
8*^z
-'-$rv*+_
I
12
11
10
9
oo
7
6\
5
4
a
2
1
I\ r".-l .r :
i
,t
a)
t
alntLll #o,ni^"d,^
*t
4pta d(x)?*/]
V"r-"o".Vua^t ,
5R-N <tF-+TB+c4aiq.1- yuett-S
Ar R"n tn
S'{ruz \ttillc ^f
&an Mq A-.4,^z
Name
I' t: t.
-'t
f
\t\r{ \( [$ \l u
C cpr4o
5?O ,'cre. AJenrre-
-SD)t)/t,Det/Ilt L-^-
sO JuniPerHillLn
L+l, €u! STztJcas PL
It6o ap- (tot
7t9 H uehiloo^' V,
7o( ttJ atl l\Jr^,o\ Ln
3o I r"/o oc/ t{v-^,,"x Lr., (
Address
:1, l" . l"_r.-.u;.i"1.i.
\,tiw\rrltN
Itr.(v'-'--l!
c
rrta6
l(c->q4-/44
I
Signature
!,.-''-': .l
,t
-.'1
Yl^{r}r[(i ( \
rn4
t^--= h ol lOaL.o-h..
sb t{'= pen Q atol ' co,-r
DA^- ql / r o)je !rL,
-J or nf e a.Jpzn6 pul-/s"k.e6
Email
A,tldru .\dw
,C.ru
>Yv1
n
Coty Join
Petition: Opposition to the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre Iuxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring valley Ranch substantial
PUD Amendment.
,-\L;
8c*^t
.--ir
12
11
10
9
I
7
6
5
4
J
2
1
KMT.<J"V\VJ,T
Q ot<
ffiC,rK1o n
-\c,1\oc
fir\\Ctnd
Name
5d!"&c\:\enr-BNdaer
e+n ft' Bc)L lc+if{'( C4{84,\I"DA( =a 'a u'/ 1
\Llt $er*e"yZ D
e c-\d)Olr-o cl<- ( O?Xv;12
1L.{\ Ou-
C r.u'N>c.r,, dc\l C 0 ?{rrz<
Address
4tu
Signature
( r \(WrCrx )C,V-r
rC r\
..}alturrnvnlgi:- Q-
*l---U,.\ c G {^rf
Email
:r
Coty Join
Petition: opposition to the spring Valley Ranch puD Amendment
Opposer: Spring Valley Goalition
The spring valley coalition is a community-based organization representing
the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who oppose the spring
valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed development (a
5,900-acre luxury, private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned
that this development will destroy the unique rural character of our community
by interfering with critical wildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened
transportation infrastructure, and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per
day. lt will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley,
Please sign the petition to halt the proposed spring Valley Ranch substantiat
PUD Amendment.
E
8"oo,
E
--:'-:sF+
E
12
11
10
9
oo
7
6
5
4
t
2
1
ho{'?,^
Uou.rr,l
l)yltrt"' l/uCftu-
Name
?tooc (,airt , &tcdo
de.UllL/
Address
A{atp<1-
/M/,-''Lj;:-
Signature
hLnn'5r.^qsJl05u,^,
)
Dv h in'/lr't,4d?/cI11"vl t/.).n
Email Coty
lr/
\
Join
Change.org Petition:
The Spring Valley Coalition wvyw.springvalleycoalition.com is a community-based
organization representing the shared interests of a diverse group of stakeholders who
oppose the Spring Valley Ranch planned development project. The proposed
development (a 5,900-acre luxury private golf course community consisting primarily of
second homes) is currently under review by Garfield County. We are concerned that this
development will destroy the unique rural character of our community by interfering with
criticalwildlife habitat, straining our already overburdened transportation infrastructure,
creating public safety concerns and wasting up to 1,000,000 gallons of water per day.
This development will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the Roaring Fork Valley.
As you deliberate whether you should sign the petition, remember why you chose
Spring Valley/Garfield County as your home. lf you are like the members of the
Coalition, it was because of the charm that lies in the balance between development
and preservation. Let's not risk losing what makes our neighborhoods unique so that an
out of town Developer can realize short-term financial gains at your expense.
We urge all residents of Spring Valley and the surrounding areas to stand together with
the SV Coalition against the Spring Valley Ranch PUD amendment threatening our way
of life.
Slgn fhe petition today!
To support the Spring Valley Coalition, not Change.org click this link: Donate.
Send an Email to a Decision maker voicing your concerns!
o
EmAil Glg[n Hatrnanq C*ouFty Plalnet
Email John M_artin Gounlv Cgmnnissioner
Email Tom Jqnkovskv County Cqmmissioner
Ernail Mlke Samson County Comrnissioner
Sharsjlhe petit!_gn link_ with your friends and neighbors.
1 Matthew Potenziani Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 10/14/2025
2 Maria Rodríguez Rifle CO 81650 United States 10/13/2025
3 Jesse Wagner Basalt CO 81621 United States 10/10/2025
4 Kevin Combs Grand Junction CO 81505 United States 10/7/2025
5 Ryan Arnold Carbondale CO 81623 United States 10/5/2025
6 Theresa DOWD Carbondale CO 81623 United States 10/5/2025
7 Chris Tobias Glenwood Springs CO 81611 United States 10/4/2025
8 Ethan Apodaca Silt CO 81652 United States 10/3/2025
9 Megan Jewell Rifle CO 81650 United States 9/29/2025
10 Robert Ernst Carbondale CO 81632 United States 9/22/2025
11 Rosemary Burkholder Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2025
12 Kelly Gitre Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/8/2025
13 Dorsey Moore Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/2/2025
14 Erin M Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/1/2025
15 Michaela Higgins Carbondale CO 81623 United States 7/30/2025
16 Barry Smith Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/28/2025
17 Mary Smith Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/26/2025
18 Michael Freeman Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/22/2025
19 Jo Mullison Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/16/2025
20 Lauren Fox Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/11/2025
21 Desiree Rivera New Castle CO 81647 United States 6/2/2025
22 Aaryn Willcuts Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2025
23 Ben Smart Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2025
24 Rosemary Burkholder Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/10/2025
25 Nick Kerrigan Eagle CO 89119 United States 5/3/2025
26 sophia marquez Basalt CO 81621 United States 4/30/2025
27 Matthew Moeller Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 4/28/2025
28 Daniel Moloney Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 4/24/2025
29 Jorge Gonzalez Silt CO 81652 United States 4/24/2025
30 Warren Barker Eagle CO 81631 United States 4/18/2025
31 Ann Szucs-Spencer Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 4/16/2025
32 José David Rebolorio Rifle 81650 United States 4/14/2025
33 Simon Krzych Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/13/2025
34 Kaitlyn Nolan Eagle CO 81623 United States 4/13/2025
35 Daniel OConnor Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 4/10/2025
36 Yun Scott Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/7/2025
37 Suzanne Dalton Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/5/2025
38 Michael Dalton Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/5/2025
39 Cecile Fielder Aspen CO 81611 United States 4/4/2025
40 Thomas Fraser Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 4/4/2025
41 michaleen jeronimus Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/3/2025
42 Alex Tiernan Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/2/2025
43 Brooks Tessier Carbondale CO 81623 United States 4/1/2025
44 Haley Gooding Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 4/1/2025
45 Lisa Sansom Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/31/2025
46 Erin Levstik Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/28/2025
47 Nalini Rao Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/26/2025
48 Michaella Johnson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/26/2025
49 Miranda Murphy Rifle CO 81650 United States 3/26/2025
50 Jonathan Hershberger Aspen CO 81611 United States 3/25/2025
51 Kristine Glauber Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/25/2025
52 Vanda Ciceryova Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/25/2025
53 PETER GLAUBER Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/25/2025
54 Pam Johnson Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/24/2025
55 David Hodgins Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/24/2025
56 Jaime Belsey Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/24/2025
57 Monica Erickson Carbondale CO 81601 United States 3/24/2025
58 Brady Heuer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/24/2025
59 Ginny Weathers Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/24/2025
60 Cashion Smith Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/24/2025
61 Steve Kuschner Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/24/2025
62 Cyndi McGinnis Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/24/2025
63 Gina Noble Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/24/2025
64 Susanna Alter Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/24/2025
65 Patricia Trauger Glenwood Springs,Co CO 81601 United States 3/24/2025
66 Kerri Pirzadeh Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/23/2025
67 Jean Cottrell Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/23/2025
68 David Badesch Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/23/2025
69 Chelsie Brehm Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/22/2025
70 Pete Belch Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/21/2025
71 Amy Westervelt Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/21/2025
72 Theresa Dwyer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/21/2025
73 John Ellwood Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/21/2025
74 Richard Stewart Carbondal CO 81623 United States 3/20/2025
75 Kat Bird Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/20/2025
76 Judy Wrigley CARBONDALE CO 81623 United States 3/20/2025
77 Joseph Tomaswick Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/20/2025
78 Brittany Lindsey Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/20/2025
79 Saundra Swanson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/20/2025
80 Becky Ciani Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/20/2025
81 Elizabeth Henry New Castle CO 81647 United States 3/20/2025
82 Cody Diaz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/18/2025
83 Elizabeth Casner Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/17/2025
84 Mary Tencza New Castle CO 81647 United States 3/17/2025
85 Nancy Ferguson Snowmass Village CO 81615 United States 3/17/2025
86 Linda Moore Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/13/2025
87 Spencer Schiffer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 3/9/2025
88 susan hale Snowmass CO 81654 United States 3/5/2025
89 Joshua Neuman Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 3/2/2025
90 Michael Melhauser Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/28/2025
91 Erin Carrieri Gypsum CO 81637 United States 2/27/2025
92 John Loomis Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/23/2025
93 Tatyana Stevens Glenwood Springs CO 81621 United States 2/22/2025
94 Maya Kurtz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/22/2025
95 Paula Sautter Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/21/2025
96 Burton Schwab Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/18/2025
97 Gwendolyn Porter Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/17/2025
98 Christopher Swallows Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/16/2025
99 Paula Kurtz Eagle CO 81631 United States 2/15/2025
100 Pam Fleck Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/12/2025
101 Margaret Ash Carbondale CO 81623-189 United States 2/11/2025
102 Margaret Seanor Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/11/2025
103 Carolyn Parker Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/11/2025
104 Evan Weger Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/10/2025
105 Sheryl Doll Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/10/2025
106 Barbara Kelly Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/10/2025
107 James Sweeney Carbondale CO 81623 United States 2/9/2025
108 Seth Andersen Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 2/5/2025
109 Myranda Swedlund Avon CO 81620 United States 2/4/2025
110 Jay French Carbondale CO 81623 United States 1/26/2025
111 George Lopez Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 1/23/2025
112 Lydia Dye Rifle CO 81650 United States 1/23/2025
113 Sandy Geisner Rifle CO 81650 United States 1/22/2025
114 Christina Dickson Rifle CO 81650 United States 1/22/2025
115 Weston Scott New Castle CO 81647 United States 1/21/2025
116 Geoffrey Guimond Carbondale CO 81623 United States 1/19/2025
117 Derrick Jaramillo Gypsum CO 81637 United States 1/19/2025
118 Brittney Anderson Rifle CO 81650 United States 1/17/2025
119 Matthew Hunt Carbondale CO 81623 United States 1/15/2025
120 Jean Allard Carbondale CO 81623 United States 1/14/2025
121 Dean Ladago Aspen CO 81611 United States 1/13/2025
122 Tierney White Carbondale CO 81623 United States 1/13/2025
123 Elizabeth McCracken Basalt CO 81621 United States 1/12/2025
124 Ken Fry 2564 highway 82 glenwood sprinCO 81601 United States 1/11/2025
125 Luke Gair Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 1/8/2025
126 Breckie Hunt Basalt CO 81621 United States 1/5/2025
127 Andrea Bauer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 1/5/2025
128 Dee Redding Rifle CO 81650 United States 1/5/2025
129 Corey Summers Carbondale CO 81623 United States 12/27/2024
130 Neshay Evers Carbondale CO 81623 United States 11/29/2024
131 Sara Mickus Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 11/22/2024
132 Cynthia Rippy Basalt CO 81621 United States 11/20/2024
133 Angela Hanley Carbondale CO 81623 United States 11/20/2024
134 Erin Quinn Carbondale CO 81623 United States 11/20/2024
135 Monica De La Espriella Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 11/20/2024
136 Jennifer Jones Carbondale CO 81623 United States 11/11/2024
137 Madison Alvarado Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 10/3/2024
138 Dawn Hershberger Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 10/1/2024
139 Rebecca Musselman Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/30/2024
140 Rachel Owens Basalt CO 81621 United States 9/29/2024
141 michelle strobl Aspen CO 81611 United States 9/28/2024
142 Rebecca Segal Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/28/2024
143 Monique Vidal Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/28/2024
144 Rebecca Winchester Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/28/2024
145 Dave Eisele Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/27/2024
146 Jessica Bowler Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/26/2024
147 julie grimm Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/25/2024
148 Courtny Lagimoniere Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/24/2024
149 William Hilderbrand Aspen CO 81611 United States 9/22/2024
150 Adrian Fielder Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/18/2024
151 Matthew Shmigelsky Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/18/2024
152 Alexis Jones Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/18/2024
153 Lauren Olson Glenwood Springs CO 80231 United States 9/18/2024
154 Kylie Endres glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 9/18/2024
155 Tanner Jones Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/18/2024
156 Hannah-Hunt Wander Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/17/2024
157 Luke Wander Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/17/2024
158 Ciara Morrison Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/17/2024
159 Doug Graybeal Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/17/2024
160 Sayre Harris Glenwood Springs 81601 United States 9/17/2024
161 Claudia Lozoya Grand Junction CO 81504 United States 9/17/2024
162 Faviola Herrera Alba Grand Junction CO 81504 United States 9/17/2024
163 royal Laybourn Aspen CO 81611 United States 9/16/2024
164 jo ashton Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/16/2024
165 Lori Brandon Carbondale CO United States 9/16/2024
166 Keith Oken Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/16/2024
167 Duncan Barber Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/16/2024
168 Karl Kroner Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/16/2024
169 Rylie Rebidue Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2024
170 Carol Gault Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2024
171 Julie Kennedy Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2024
172 Erin Bassett Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2024
173 Evan Teperman Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2024
174 Cole Green-Smith Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/15/2024
175 Joseph Baldwin Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/15/2024
176 Seth Nieves Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/15/2024
177 Molly Garland Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/15/2024
178 Danielle Hleihel New Castle CO 81647 United States 9/15/2024
179 Adrienne Ma New Castle CO 81647 United States 9/15/2024
180 Baylie Persson Silt CO 81652 United States 9/15/2024
181 Nikki MacLeod Aspen CO 81611 United States 9/14/2024
182 Chase Carter Basalt CO 81621 United States 9/14/2024
183 Meg Hendricks Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
184 Robert Donlan Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
185 John&Jolie Ramo Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
186 Cici Kinney Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
187 MARK FOX CARBONDALE CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
188 Wewer Keohane Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
189 Melissa Cook Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
190 Ted Behar Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
191 gwyneth Carew Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/14/2024
192 Jeweli Wiltse Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/14/2024
193 Madison Wolff Glenwood Springs CO 81602 United States 9/14/2024
194 Aidan Ensley Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 9/14/2024
195 Dyani Lozoya Grand Junction CO 81504 United States 9/14/2024
196 Aj Archuleta Grand Junction CO 81501 United States 9/14/2024
197 Holly Taylor New castle CO 81647 United States 9/14/2024
198 Debbie Medlock New Castle CO 81647 United States 9/14/2024
199 Genevieve Villamizar Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/12/2024
200 Tracey Westhoff Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/12/2024
201 Melissa Moritz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/12/2024
202 Anais Brown Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/11/2024
203 Zachary Abley Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/7/2024
204 Lisa Strand Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/7/2024
205 Serenity Fidecaro Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 9/7/2024
206 Sylvia Theisen Basalt CO 81621 United States 9/3/2024
207 Courtney Lawler Carbondale CO 81623 United States 9/3/2024
208 Megan Lamb Silt CO 81652 United States 9/2/2024
209 Alan Nelson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/29/2024
210 marc bennett glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 8/29/2024
211 Elizabeth Kae McDonald Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/28/2024
212 Laurie Casas Carbondsle CO 81623 United States 8/28/2024
213 Russell Schweis Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/28/2024
214 Heather Dresser GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 United States 8/28/2024
215 Laura Tobin Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/28/2024
216 Megan Forrest Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/28/2024
217 Tara Mall Rifle CO 81650 United States 8/28/2024
218 Kindred DiPalma Redstone CO 81623 United States 8/27/2024
219 Katie Dyal Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/25/2024
220 Shaw Hughes Aspen CO 81611 United States 8/24/2024
221 Scott Fandrich Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/24/2024
222 Molly Hamilton Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/24/2024
223 Brittany Lindsey Carbondale CO 81623 United States 8/22/2024
224 Eric Helander GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 United States 8/16/2024
225 philip maass glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 8/16/2024
226 KayDee Reos Gypsum CO 81637 United States 8/15/2024
227 Gabriel Reos Gypsum CO 81637 United States 8/15/2024
228 Miguel Delgado Aspen CO 81611 United States 8/14/2024
229 Josh Hejtmanek Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/11/2024
230 Jean Roskam Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 8/11/2024
231 Monica Beck Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 8/1/2024
232 Devan Crane Snowmass CO 81654 United States 7/25/2024
233 Sam Gemus Aspen CO 81611 United States 7/23/2024
234 Cory Moore Grand Junction CO 81501 United States 7/22/2024
235 Jennifer Vanian Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/19/2024
236 Doug Winter Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/11/2024
237 Sarah Premich Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/10/2024
238 Beth Smetzer Marble CO 81623 United States 7/10/2024
239 Mary Bowles Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 7/9/2024
240 Cheryl Cain Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/6/2024
241 Eleanor Yeager Aspen CO 81611 United States 7/5/2024
242 SUSAN CHRISTMAN Carbondale CO 81623 United States 7/5/2024
243 Julia Lang Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/5/2024
244 Nicholas Brown Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 7/2/2024
245 Daniel Cutler Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/30/2024
246 Mercedes Fradl Rifle 81650 United States 6/28/2024
247 Audrey Allen Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/24/2024
248 Troy Trulove Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/22/2024
249 Laurel Williams Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/21/2024
250 Marj Comer Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/20/2024
251 Anthony Choma Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/18/2024
252 Sally Fuller Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/17/2024
253 JoAnn Potter Riggle Eagle CO 81631 United States 6/16/2024
254 Jamie Darien Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/16/2024
255 Beth Dwyer Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/16/2024
256 Audrey Poindexter Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/15/2024
257 David Kerr Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/14/2024
258 Kathy Morary Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/14/2024
259 Sarah Smith New Castle CO 81647 United States 6/14/2024
260 Annie Graber Wells Aspen CO 81611 United States 6/13/2024
261 Mary Harrel Lawrence Avon CO 81620 United States 6/13/2024
262 Michael Rosenberg Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/13/2024
263 Paula Rhodes Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/13/2024
264 Ralph Wanner Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/13/2024
265 Lynne Cassidy New Castle CO 81647 United States 6/13/2024
266 Sonia Rains Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/13/2024
267 Jan Quint Basalt CO 81621 United States 6/12/2024
268 Becky Lange Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/12/2024
269 Leslie Stoupas Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/11/2024
270 Eddi Vanderhoof Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/11/2024
271 Sonia Marzec Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/10/2024
272 Stephen Avery Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/10/2024
273 Lauren Mayer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/9/2024
274 Joseph Gamble Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/9/2024
275 Danyelle Rigli Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/8/2024
276 Teal Plattner Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/7/2024
277 Briana Lencioni Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/7/2024
278 Taylor Bennett Glenwood Springs CO 81611 United States 6/7/2024
279 Hanna Barbe Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/7/2024
280 Tyrus Mclachlan Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/7/2024
281 Kaylie Iribe Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/7/2024
282 Micky Hohl Basalt CO 81621 United States 6/6/2024
283 Julie Hygon Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/6/2024
284 Christopher Hygon Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/6/2024
285 Monica Chavez Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/5/2024
286 Jen Ghigiarelli Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/5/2024
287 Devona Walter parachute CO 81635 United States 6/5/2024
288 Nancy Duffy Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/4/2024
289 Logan Brevig Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/4/2024
290 Bonita Gana Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/4/2024
291 Louis Puracchio Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/4/2024
292 patricia herbert Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/4/2024
293 Alyssa Davis Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/4/2024
294 Brittany Nguyen Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/4/2024
295 Tara Olson Silt CO 81652 United States 6/4/2024
296 Pamela Kite Silt CO 81652 United States 6/4/2024
297 Paige Ames Aspen CO 81611 United States 6/3/2024
298 Emily Miskiewicz Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/3/2024
299 Kallie Hyer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/3/2024
300 Lisa Adams Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/3/2024
301 Lori Westhoff Glenwood Spriings CO 81601 United States 6/3/2024
302 Braden Johnson Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 6/3/2024
303 Jennifer Johnson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/3/2024
304 Isela Castillo Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/3/2024
305 Douglas Johnson Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 6/3/2024
306 Lori Harris Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/3/2024
307 Trinity Mink Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/3/2024
308 Amber Reinke Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/3/2024
309 Chelsey Seaton Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/3/2024
310 Trevor Lindberg Parachute CO 81635 United States 6/3/2024
311 Susan Clark Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/3/2024
312 Lydia Dwire Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/3/2024
313 Carson Germano Rifle CO 81650 United States 6/3/2024
314 Tegan Peckat Silt CO 81652 United States 6/3/2024
315 Violet Koziol Carbondale CO 81623 United States 6/2/2024
316 Anastasia Jambor Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 6/2/2024
317 Catherine Hagen Aspen CO 81611 United States 6/1/2024
318 Kara Edewaard Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/31/2024
319 Michelle Holland Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/30/2024
320 Gwen Garcelon Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/30/2024
321 Adam Kracl Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/29/2024
322 Katie Bennas Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/28/2024
323 Barbara Hapgood Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/28/2024
324 Paul Stover GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 United States 5/28/2024
325 Karen Ruiz Basalt CO 81621 United States 5/27/2024
326 Jill Meadows Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/27/2024
327 Joe Sullivan Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/27/2024
328 Lizzie Strazza Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/27/2024
329 Matthew Moore Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/27/2024
330 Yu Chen Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/27/2024
331 Nathan Klingenstein Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/27/2024
332 Joan Troth Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/27/2024
333 Elise Osenga Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/27/2024
334 J DeBold Basalt CO 81621 United States 5/26/2024
335 Deborah VanCott Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/26/2024
336 Cynthia Lindsay Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/26/2024
337 Lynne Uhl Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/26/2024
338 Jen Newcomb Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/26/2024
339 Cari Kaplan Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/26/2024
340 Susan Sullivan Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
341 Karlene Grange Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
342 Jill Garling Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
343 Nancy STOVER Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
344 Kenneth Oakes Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
345 Tobias Munk Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
346 Rozy Abley Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/25/2024
347 Renee McCullough Glenwood Springs CO 81621 United States 5/25/2024
348 Cory Roth Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/25/2024
349 Mike Kamm Snowmass CO 81654 United States 5/25/2024
350 John Schuhmacher Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/24/2024
351 Denise Lefort Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/24/2024
352 Heather Bryan Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/24/2024
353 Adam Wilkening Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/24/2024
354 Gabriela Lloyd Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/24/2024
355 Clara Trujillo Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/23/2024
356 Brandon Dawson Basalt CO 81621 United States 5/23/2024
357 Maria Jose Wilkening Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/23/2024
358 Jill Kane Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/23/2024
359 Tristen Burkholder Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/23/2024
360 Elizabeth Donovan Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/23/2024
361 Asha Macwana Carbondale CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
362 Amy Gensch Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/23/2024
363 Helen Andersen Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
364 Bethany Ostrowski Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
365 Nathan Torres Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
366 Wynter Corte Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
367 Jaime Stoess Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
368 Julia Strawser Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
369 Cindy Frale Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
370 Joshua Schultz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
371 Angela Schaumburg Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
372 Rebecca Steinbach Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
373 Connor Denney Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
374 Erin Beaver Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
375 Chase Nieslanik Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
376 Lisette Simmons Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
377 Amy Burtelow Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
378 Socorro Herrera Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
379 Patrick Donovan Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
380 Allison Tinacci Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/23/2024
381 Ambri Sheahan New castle CO 81647 United States 5/23/2024
382 Amy Rutkowski Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/22/2024
383 Greg Pronto Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/22/2024
384 Rachael Breland Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/22/2024
385 Nicholls Nelson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/22/2024
386 Leah Anderson Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/22/2024
387 Janet Anderson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/22/2024
388 Joy Blong Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
389 Victoria Stulgis Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
390 Kriste Grau Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
391 Susan Nicholson Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
392 Ian Anderson Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
393 Mark Cesark Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
394 Barbara Gadbaw Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
395 Christine Kroening Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
396 Travis Schultz Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
397 Sara Shainholtz Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/21/2024
398 Jacqueline Sweeney Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
399 Yantze Zastrow Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
400 Ruth Sears Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
401 Rebecca Segal Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
402 Katie Munch Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
403 Alice Sjoberg Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
404 Brianne Epp Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/21/2024
405 Kala Kluender Glenwood Springs CO 81601-921 United States 5/21/2024
406 Barb Embry Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/20/2024
407 Jupiter Johnson Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/20/2024
408 Gabriella Haftel Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/20/2024
409 Kayleelah Fagan Basalt CO 81621 United States 5/20/2024
410 Linda Ornstein Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
411 Beau Sartin Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
412 Casey Seaford Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
413 gabrielle stark carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
414 Michelle Buchman Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
415 Mary Catherine Conger Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
416 Linda Holloway Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
417 Jo Johnston carbondale CO 81621 United States 5/20/2024
418 Susan Graves Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
419 Susan Powers Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
420 Claire Hayne Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
421 Carlota Klimas Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
422 Suzanne Filerman Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
423 Katherine Delanoy Eagle CO 81631 United States 5/20/2024
424 Jacci McKenna Eagle CO 81631 United States 5/20/2024
425 Clayton Smith Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
426 Karen Cutler Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
427 Jackie Warncke Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
428 Mary Minor Levis Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
429 James Jones Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
430 Karen Flamand Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
431 Timothy Gustafson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
432 Laurie Biere Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
433 Don Click Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
434 Bonnie Shappell Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
435 Derek Donovan Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
436 Shelley Conger Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/20/2024
437 Conner Kilpatrick Grand Junction CO 81504 United States 5/20/2024
438 Alex Mendoza New Castle CO 81647 United States 5/20/2024
439 Tracey Yajko New Castle CO 81647 United States 5/20/2024
440 Delia Malone Redstone CO 81623 United States 5/20/2024
441 Rhianna Loy Rifle CO 81650 United States 5/20/2024
442 Kirsten Smith Silt CO 81428 United States 5/20/2024
443 Kielee Alexander Silt CO 81652 United States 5/20/2024
444 Rachel Smith Snowmass CO 81654 United States 5/20/2024
445 Enid Ritchy Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/19/2024
446 Jim Lindsay Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/19/2024
447 Susie Straus Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/19/2024
448 Lynette Brickell Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/19/2024
449 Karen Glenn Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/19/2024
450 Tom Reid Glenwood CO 8160 United States 5/19/2024
451 Lucy Maggard Glenwood Sorings CO 81601 United States 5/19/2024
452 Deborah Williams Glenwood Springs CO 81611 United States 5/19/2024
453 kathryn Nelson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/19/2024
454 Pat Maurer Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/19/2024
455 Lance Luckett Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/19/2024
456 mike cavanaugh Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/19/2024
457 Philip Warncke Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/18/2024
458 Kyle Orcutt Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/18/2024
459 Maddy Lieb Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
460 Bob Bogner Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
461 Edward Hall Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
462 Walter Krom Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
463 Virginia Marshall Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
464 Justin Bradford Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
465 Kristin Shannon Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
466 Fiona O’Donnell Pax Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
467 Mary-margaret Kober Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/18/2024
468 Susie Amichaux Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
469 Randi Henry Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
470 Mary Axelson Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
471 Elizabeth Phillips Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
472 Gina Pedrick Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
473 Patricia Kramer Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
474 Rebecca Spagnolo Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
475 Naoise Nickolay Glenwood Springs CO 81610 United States 5/18/2024
476 Clive Nickolay Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
477 Julie Pokryfke Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
478 Baylee Schenk Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
479 Corey Spagnolo Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
480 Joan Isenberg Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
481 Kimberly A Hopkins Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
482 Anne Sale Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
483 Martha Harris Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/18/2024
484 Joan Davids Rifle CO 81650 United States 5/18/2024
485 Chandra Allred Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/17/2024
486 Debra Morton Aspen CO 81611 United States 5/17/2024
487 Joyce Kauffman Auro CO 80015 United States 5/17/2024
488 Emily Bumgarner Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
489 Jan Williams Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
490 Rebecca Doane Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
491 Lisa Weimer Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
492 Crispen Limacher Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
493 Mike Keefe Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
494 Fred Annes carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
495 Andrea Luplow Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
496 Carley Smyth Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
497 Mary Kay Hunt Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
498 Joel Kolen Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
499 Veronica Fandrich Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
500 Lauri Rubinstein Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
501 Deborah Bradford Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
502 Mary Griffith Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
503 George Bereska Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
504 Charles 'Tim' Cottrell Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
505 kirk gebert carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
506 Maureen Rothman Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
507 Phoebe Gruel Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
508 Arthur Rothman Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
509 John Rehl Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
510 Sheryl Merkel Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
511 Lawrence OGorman Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
512 Leslie Lamont Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
513 Chris Beiser Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
514 Deborah Capogrosso Batson Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
515 Robert Barson Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
516 Diane Childs Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/17/2024
517 Mary Williams Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
518 Steve Kuschner Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
519 Edward Holub Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
520 Aidan Pope Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
521 Sandra Almazan Glenwood springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
522 Amanda Rivera Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
523 Becky Ciani Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
524 Adam Gordon Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
525 Donna Donofrio Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
526 Christine Sullivan Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
527 Jane Szucs Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
528 Kendrick Neubecker Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
529 Meg Kernahan Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
530 Peggy Moritz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
531 Gregory Dorais Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
532 Alan Cox Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
533 Jeremy Gerbaz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
534 Angela Boyer Glenwood Springs CO 80601 United States 5/17/2024
535 Todd Chapman Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
536 Mary Faldasz Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/17/2024
537 Denise Lynch Rifle CO 81650 United States 5/17/2024
538 Linda Graviett Silt CO 81652 United States 5/17/2024
539 Jennifer Long Snowmass CO 81654-940 United States 5/17/2024
540 Susan Dillingham Snowmass CO 81654 United States 5/17/2024
541 Megan Chester Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/16/2024
542 Karen Moculeski Carbondale CO 81623 United States 5/16/2024
543 Heather Hill Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/16/2024
544 Amy Bradford Rifle CO 81650 United States 5/16/2024
545 Tammy Caughlin Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/14/2024
546 Lorna Marchand Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/14/2024
547 William Douglas Gurley MD Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/13/2024
548 Miriam Fennell Glenwood Springs CO 81601 United States 5/13/2024
Name City State Postal Code Commented Date Comment
kelly murphy littleton CO 80128 5/17/2024
"The development is completely inappropriate for and
detrimental to the rural area. The valley does not need more
second or third homes. While workforce housing is needed,
this development will create a greater need for workers than
the workforce housing it will provide."
Delia Malone Redstone CO 81623 5/20/2024
"I'm signing because I want to protect what I love about
Colorado. This development will substantially contribute to
the downward spiral of loss of our western culture, wildlife,
and wildlands that is the foundation of our Colorado way of
life."
Max Harrington 5/20/2024
"Preservation is key and we don't need more golf courses. We
should be fighting for mental health resources rather than
washing corporate greed"
Dustin Belcher Carbondale CO 81623 5/21/2024 "Keep the Colorado we love Colorado!"
Liz Caris Tucson AZ 85704 5/22/2024
"I cannot imagine the change of traffic pattern CR 114 Spring
Valley coming up the hill would take ! 517 homes and passing
Pinon Mesa,Elk Springs, CMC Spring Valley ,.. just to name a
few!! What about Rivendell Sod Farm ,..and the houses in
that direction? Red Mt. Road would be reduced to a stand
still. Road way to narrow for this type of development ."
Adam Wilkening Basalt CO 81621 5/24/2024 "Save Spring Valley and help preserve the area we love!"
Jill Meadows Carbondale CO 81623 5/27/2024
"I believe this in not the type of development that the people
who already live and work in our valley and neighboring
communities will benefit from. Our limited natural resources
(water) as well as road and highway infrastructure are already
overburdened."
Adam Kracl
Glenwood
Springs CO 81601 5/29/2024
"I Live next door to this development, the other side of the
fence next door. We need to preserve what is left of the RFV
heritage: rural lifestyle, ranching and agriculture. The
proposed development is larger than Glenwood Springs
proper. Water will be scarce, my well already slows down in
the summer. The irrigation and springs around the valley will
dry up. Vacation homes and second homes are plenty in this
valley, we need middle class support instead of catering to
the upper crust that are only here a few weeks out of the
year."
Michelle Holland Carbondale CO 81623 5/30/2024
"The impact on precious wildlife, the irresponsible demand
on critical water, the impact on traffic. The additional stress
on already burdened resources with absolutely no benefit to
the community. No housing for teachers, workers, medical
services. Just luxury users sucking dry the natural resources."
Gwen Garcelon Carbondale CO 81623 5/30/2024
"Golf courses are not needed, farms are. If we don't preserve
land for growing food we won't have sustainable communities
as our global breadbaskets begin to shut down. Which is
immiment. And snow will be much more scarce so a ski area
is not a wise investment. We need communities that are
developed to function in the face of climate pressures - which
means people that live here. Not second home owners"
Carsom Germano Rifle CT 81650 6/3/2024
"Spring valley ranch is part of history and I would be
devastated to see it gone !"
Devona Walter parachute CO 81635 6/5/2024
"We need to stop building on every open space, we don't
need anymore big houses and rich snobs that don't care
about anything but them self."
Juanita Moston Denver CO 80207 6/13/2024
"I love wildlife. They deserve a place in this world free of
humans."
Jim Stone Asheville CO 28803 6/14/2024
"Spring Valley's awesome rural nature would be ruined by this
proposed development."
Mercedes Fradl Rifle 81650 6/28/2024
"The valley is already WAY overpopulated. Adding another
development isn’t going to slow down the overuse of
infrastructure."
Sam Gemus Aspen CO 81611 7/23/2024
"We do not need a golf course up there. Quit turning this
valley into Florida/Arizona retirement facilities. Use some
imagination and build better mixed use housing for locals and
tourists. I would rather have outfitters and hunting lodges up
there."
Maureen Rothman Carbondale CO 81623 8/28/2024
"This proposal is entirely out of character with the area. it only
exasperates the problems we already have (lack of real
affordable housing, worker shortage, traffic issues, climate
change, critical wild life habitat & water). Two golf course and
a south west facing ski hill? Ridiculous! Have the developers
even been on the property in the winter? Show us you actually
care about your constituents and the western Colorado
environment"
marc bennett
glenwood
springs CO 81601 8/29/2024
"STOP THIS unnessary development and help preserve this
magnificent area. This proposal is way out of proportion to
this area. STOP IT AT ALL COSTS."
Cynthia Haller Sanford FL 32771 8/31/2024
"Concerned about the water usage, loss of wildlife habitat.
Decrease of quality of life for local residents of Spring Valley."
Chase Carter Santa Monica CA 90404 9/14/2024
"Because the water and traffic impact of this development is
UNSUSTAINABLE"
Erin Bassett Carbondale CO 81623 9/15/2024
"Our valley that we love is bursting at the seams and adding a
development of this magnitude will impact our way of life.
The strain on our resources and infrastructure will be
devastating."
Lori Brandon Carbondale CO 9/16/2024
"The valley cannot sustain this level of development. And the
water needed is a great concern."
Matthew
Shmigelsky Carbondale CO 81623 9/18/2024
"This proposal is the definition of insanity - continue to build
large unaffordable to locals and climate destroying homes
and recreation amenities. As a small business owner I talk
with fellow small business owners that are and have shut
down successful business because there’s no one to staff or
hire. All large scale development in the region HAS to be
100% workforce deed restricted housing only."
Monique Vidal Carbondale CO 81623 9/28/2024
"I built a home in elk springs in 1999 that overlooked the
spring valley aquifer. Over the years when the aquifer water
surfaced on the spring valley floor there was less and less
water surfacing over the coarse of more than a decade-
meaning the aquifer was suffering a draw down. I question
whether there is enough water available up there for a
monster development that includes irrigating golf courses
and making snow for a ski area that doesn’t receive enough
snow pack. I also wonder about chemical inputs from golf
courses polluting the spring valley aquifer which is the water
supply for residents up there. Then there is habitat loss for all
of the wildlife. This will hugely impact all of the wildlife and
biodiversity. A ski area, two golf courses, club house… I knew
when the Shinoa development failed years ago some
developer would circle back to this piece of land. I also
realize that Garfield county population continues to grow and
new housing is necessary, but this development plan is over
the top! Also there are no firehouses up there and this
stretches the sheriff ‘s resources and other human services in
the county. Then there is impact from major commercial
traffic which will impact residents and result in lots of wildlife
fatalaties. This development plan is innapropiate for spring
valley!"
Rachel Owens Basalt CO 81621 9/29/2024
"Hi, I am a native to the valley & I still live here and I went to
college by CMC and if they developed this area it would never
be the same and there would be less habitat for wildlife yet
again. Also a lot more traffic in there area and we have
enough traffic. Not to mention all the trash it would create
during the process and after from people living there. Their
impact on the area. Again and again I’ve seen it through out
this entire valley from where whole foods sits and there used
to be a herd of elk there, to trying to save the nature trail in
Carbondale which they didn’t listen to any of our voices. Or
creating a bike trail up Mclure Pass. It breaks my heart. Is
any one going to listen to us again. What do we want to leave
behind. What is our legacy? Have we not learned yet. How
many times do we have to continue to say this before it is too
late?"
lydia frederick Denver CO 80232 10/6/2024
"My family and I have been residents in the Valley since 1982;
the rural countryside and wildlife and birdlife all make this a
very special place. The proposed development of 500+
homes, ski slope, golf courses, etc. is a travesty and should
be categorically denied/squashed/refused."
Neshay Evers Carbondale CO 81623 11/29/2024
"This proposal is ridiculously impractical and does not serve
the people who currently live and work in this valley."
Elizabeth
McCracken Basalt CO 81621 1/12/2025 "this is our home and community and we need to protect it ."
Spencer Schiffer Carbondale CO 81623 3/9/2025
"I have been a valley resident since 1971. The proposed
development should be denied on the basis of traffic impacts
alone. When you add the adverse impacts of construction
and development on our precious natural resources, wildlife,
and quality of life, the choice is clear. Approval must be
denied!"
Amy Westervelt Aspen CO 81611 3/21/2025
"I've lived in the valley since 2013 and am completely
opposed to this development. The Roaring Fork Valley is
already struggling to house essential workers and
accommodate traffic on highway 82. Introducing a giant,
resource-intensive development for wealthy second-home
owners will only stretch our precious housing and natural
resources further. The Roaring Fork Valley does not want this
development. Please deny approval for this terrible initiative."
Kathy Morary
Glenwood
Springs CO 81601 3/22/2025
"I have lived here for 18 yrs and move here for the serenity,
beauty, wildlife quality of life. That would all be taken away
with this development. Please do not allow this to happen to
our valley"
Miranda Murphy Rifle CO 81650 3/26/2025
"Born in Glenwood Springs 45 years ago, I have watched the
land fill up with people and degrade the ecosystems that
provide habitat for millions of species. Waterflow worries are
already prominent, & the amount of water waste proposed by
this development is insane. These people don't understand
living on the Western Slope and the lack of water in the West.
There is not enough water or open space for wildlife for this to
happen. Life is not all about money and catering to more rich
people in our valley. They are not welcome here, with their
disrespect of the area."
Luke Wander Fairview NC 28730 4/7/2025
"To an out-of-state developer who does not know the
character of this valley, I'm sure the Spring Valley Ranch
Development makes a lot of sense. To those of us who call
Garfield County our first and only home, it makes no sense for
many reasons. Yes, we need housing, but that housing needs
to be built in higher density areas closer to the valley floor and
marketed toward those of us trying to buy a first home. The
golf course, the ski hill, and the dining/retail plan only add to
the lunacy of this plan. Why even give this sort of idea any
air?"
Matt Moeller Lake forest 92610 4/28/2025
"I don’t see how this could make sense to anyone with brain. I
am a student at CMC Spring Valley and this development is
laughable. It would destroy so much wildlife/land and for
nothing in return but raising prices in an already expensive
environment. This adds and creates nothing for this amazing
community here."
Mary Smith
Glenwood
Springs CO 81601 7/26/2025
"When we decided to make Glenwood Springs, specifically
Elk Springs, our home, we had already visited many popular
Colorado towns. Aspen, Vail, Breckenridge and Telluride.
While they are all beautiful, they didn’t feel like a community.
It was transactional. Glenwood is so special and it grabbed
our hearts. Please don’t turn it into a playground for short
term visitors. You will lose land, water, habitat and your
sense of community. It will completely destroy what lives so
strongly here and what makes this places special. Do the
right thing, please."
Kevin Combs Grand Junction CO 81505 10/7/2025
"I am a third generation owner of property which abuts Spring
Valley Ranch in the Bear Creek drainage. I’m a member of the
Hubbard family, and our history in Glenwood Springs goes
back to 1885. I have seen the impact of land development in
the Glenwood area, and what it has done to land values,
wildlife habitat and our dwindling water resources. The
Spring Valley Ranch PUD is a bad concept, and will put
additional unneeded pressure on wildlife as well as wasting
our already scarce water supply. Golf courses and
multimillion dollar homes with lush green landscaping are a
tremendous waste of water. A south-facing ski area is a
ludicrous idea, and the water needed to supply snowmaking
would be a criminal waste of that resource."
Page 1 of 6
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
October 8, 2025
Philip Berry, AICP
Principal Planner
Garfield County Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood springs, CO 81601
Via: PBerry@garfieldcountyco.gov
RE: File No. PUAA 05-23-8967 Spring Valley Ranch PUD – Comments on Water Related
Items in April 9, 2025 Staff Report
Dear Philip:
At the request of Spring Valley Holdings, LLC, this letter presents the comments of Colorado
River Engineering, Inc. (“CRE”) on water related items in the April 9, 2025 Staff Report for the
Spring Valley Ranch PUD project. The key issues starting on page 23 from the Staff Report
are listed followed by CRE’s comments.
Water Related Staff Report Key Issues and CRE Comments
While technical calculations have been provided and supplemental analysis of the aquifer have been
submitted, concerns remain regarding its long-term sustainability and the potential to mine the aquifer
for water, in particular during high demand periods. These concerns are reflected in the County’s
Consulting Engineers comments.
This concern is not listed in the March 24,2025 review letter from Matrix Design Group, Inc.
(“Matrix”). The January 9, 2025 CRE Response to the September 6, 2024 Matrix review letter
presented a thorough analysis of the sustainability of the Spring Valley Aquifer and associated
upland aquifers that built upon prior studies by three consulting engineering firms that all
reached the same conclusion regarding sustainability. There has been no technical analysis
presented by Matrix or any other consultant that disputes the CRE findings.
Matrix notes that there are unknowns related to groundwater analysis and recommends that a
Groundwater Monitoring Plan be implemented. The questions raised by Matrix for the plan can
only be answered after several years of baseline data and sustained pumping data are obtained
and analyzed by the collective consultants for the major users in the aquifer. The aquifer is at
Page 2 of 6
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
least 450 feet deep with tens of thousands of acre feet of storage and any concerns for
reductions in well yields from the aquifer are not going to occur in one dry year or even multiple
dry years. The aquifer will operate analogous to a reservoir that draws down from pumping
and refills from recharge. The actual fluctuations and drawdown is more complicated due to
variations in the types of materials in the underlying layers and the movement of groundwater
to the southeast and southwest, but the simplistic reservoir analogy helps explain the general
process. There will be seasonal fluctuations and year to year fluctuations.
Matrix and GARCO are incorrectly asking the question “what is the impact to other users?”
SVR has vested rights that are equal to or senior right to use the SVA groundwater resource
and has been an approved PUD since 1984, with the significant analysis related to
comprehensive evaluation of the SVA for all existing and future users occurring in connection
with the circa 2000 approval. All major property owners also entered into a contractual
agreement regarding comprehensive wastewater treatment. The users agreed to a regional
central wastewater treatment facility, to have the treated effluent discharge back into the SVA
to reduce depletions to the system and to provide for raw water irrigation using the treated
effluent. SVR paid approximately $2.5 million (60% of the costs) to permit and construct the
expansion of the Spring Valley wastewater treatment facility, the trunk sewer collection main
line, and the effluent pumpback system. All of the major existing and proposed projects in the
Spring Valley area were comprehensively evaluated with respect to water and wastewater and
subsequent approvals were based on the prior evaluations agreed to by all property owners.
CRE has provided an update on the water analysis taking into account a 20+ year drought and
more refined data on consumption of water lost through natural vegetation areas. The potential
relevant question is how do the users of the SVA adjust their water usage if there is a long-
term extreme drought that results in an unforeseen impact to well yield for all users. This is
where the Groundwater Monitoring Plan (“GMP”) comes into play and all major users have
already agreed in prior water court decrees that a GMP should be developed among the major
water users. The decrees state that if and when there is ever a shortfall identified by the GMP
in the future, the parties will implement water conservation and/or develop alternative supplies
as moderated by and guided by the Basalt Water Conservancy District.
Difficulty in understanding the underlying geology of the aquifer has been noted. Additional study by a
Geohydrologist or similar profession has been recommended to better understand the movement of
water and aquifer leakage to the Roaring Fork River.
This issue comes from the September 6, 2024 Matrix letter and the CRE response presented
a list of geological reports including the USGS and CGS reports which identify and describe
Page 3 of 6
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
the SVA geology and the existence of the Spring Valley Aquifer as a defined groundwater
aquifer resource. The only other aquifers defined by the State of Colorado on the west slope
are alluvial river system aquifers. CRE addressed groundwater movement and leakage in its
response letter. CRE noted that a lake forms in the northwest end of the valley and the
CGS/USGS report documents the valley was a lake until settlers dug a ditch to Red Canyon
Creek to drain the valley. Matrix recommended the Groundwater Monitoring Plan to address
any uncertainties related to groundwater movement.
Assumptions for peak water demand and pumping rates for wells need to be better detailed. 24/7 and
365 day pumping assumptions have been called into question by the County’s consulting engineers.
Further documentation of well production, draw down and recovery need to be further assessed with
the potential need to for additional longer term pump testing. Draw down between 20 and 340 ft. was
reported in the well pump test and may not be sustainable in the long term at the proposed pumping
rates.
CRE documented pumping tests dating back to 1998 demonstrating adequate water supply
with the ability to drill additional wells if needed. CRE and Roaring Fork Engineering (“RFE”)
attempted to clarify the misunderstanding by Matrix related to peak day demand and peak
month demands. It appears Matrix used the maximum potential decreed demands
conservatively used in the CRE aquifer sustainability report rather than the significantly lower
proposed demands presented in the RFE water supply report and made a comparison to the
well pumping requirements using the wrong demand amount. CRE pointed out that the 340
feet of drawdown was actually 245 feet, occurred in a in a 11 gpm well that was pumped at 40
gpm, and that this well will not be used as a production well for the water system. SVR has
drilled 15 wells and conducted pumping tests dating back to 1998 and including a multiple week
pumping tests. All of this data is presented in the CRE response letter. The staff report shows
a graph from the LRE Water report depicting a well test pumping at 300 gpm (the peak demand
for the project is 315 gpm) with only 140 feet of drawdown. SVR has gone above and beyond
any water supply analysis provided for any other project in the County and any other project in
the Spring Valley area.
Irrigation demands and in particular the scale of golf course demand for irrigation water in the range of
750,000 gallons to 1,000,000 gallons a day is of concern.
CRE is not aware of any such concern regarding irrigation water. The March 24, 2025 Matrix
report states:
Page 4 of 6
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
“ 3. Irrigation Demand – Concerns over the figures used for consumptive use, application rates,
irrigation efficiency and size of the golf course area to be irrigated have been addressed. No further
comment.”
SVR has senior irrigation water rights that have historically irrigated approximately 80 acres on
the Middle Bench and 250 acres on the valley floor. The golf course demand will be met by
senior irrigation water rights and supplemented, as may be needed in dry years, by wells in the
SVA. This was described in the January 31, 2023 legal water supply letter from SVR’s water
attorney Patrick Miller Noto. Water supply planning conservatively assumes all irrigation water
will come from the SVA and the CRE Aquifer Sustainability Study even more conservatively
assumes a larger amount of irrigated area than proposed for the project that is allowed in the
water court decrees.
Adequacy of water storage was noted, including the realistic need for additional storage for such a large
remote development to address potential for a fire, major leak or mechanism failure. The Applicant
responded to this by proposing additional storage. An emergency response plan needs to be developed
for the potable water supply and can be addressed as part of a Preliminary Plan/Plat application once
additional technical infrastructure details have been engineered.
The Matix March 24, 2025 letter states:
“4. Water Storage Tanks – The development agrees that more storage is always beneficial and
proposes to go beyond the minimums for this relatively remote development where there is no alternate
potable water supply available. Two potable water storage tanks are proposed, approximately 885,000-
gallon potable water storage tank for the lower zone and a 455,000-gallon tank for the upper zone. In
addition, there will be an interconnection between the upper and lower zones for use in an emergency
for the lower zone. No further comment.
The Matrix recommendation for an emergency response plan was based on the concern for
storage volume, and an emergency response plan is not needed with the additional storage
volume.
Documentation that all wells have been properly permitted by the Division of Water Resources and that
augmentation plans are or will be updated to address all proposed water uses including snowmaking
as noted in the Divisions Referral Comments.
The DWR previously issued well permits for the project wells. The DWR letter notes that the
existing well permits are not valid, which is due to the fact that the permits have expired. The
well permits are expired because the wells have not been equipped with pumps and put to use.
This is an administrative matter. SVR will obtain new well permits for the proposed production
Page 5 of 6
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
wells if needed for purposes of land use approval. The SVR project is located in Area A of the
Basalt Water Conservancy District’s Umbrella Augmentation Plan decreed in Case No.
01CW077. SVR will obtain a water allotment contract from the BWCD for snowmaking as may
be required for a DWR well permit or water court application that provides for such use. These
items have already been addressed in the January 31, 2023 letter from Patrick Miller Noto.
The scale of the development and significance of the PUD in terms of density and proposed uses
warrants additional study, prior to action on the Substantial PUD Modification Application or through the
provision extensive conditions of approval. This includes requiring a Comprehensive Ground Water
Monitoring Program that tracks SVR wells and other wells utilizing the Spring Valley Aquifer. This
additional analysis is necessary to confirm compliance with LUDC Section 7-104 “All applications for
Land Use Change Permits shall have an adequate, reliable, physical, long-term and legal water supply
to serve the use ….” And Section 7-105 (A). Water Distribution Systems. The land use shall be served
by a water distribution system that is adequate to serve the proposed use and density. Draft conditions
relating to the Water Supply are provided in the recommendation section of the Staff Report.
It is CRE’s position, as evidenced by the Matrix review letters, that significant comprehensive
analyses have been conducted regarding adequate physical and legal water supply for the
proposed SVR project. Spring Valley Ranch has demonstrated an adequate physical and legal
water supply for the project consistent with the County LUR. There are no additional studies or
analysis needed. In addition, SVR has a vested right to use the SVA resource that is equal to
or senior to other water users. There is not a technical or legal analysis that refutes the opinions
regarding adequate legal and physical water supply. The major water users have already
addressed a comprehensive analysis of water supply and a mechanism to monitor the
groundwater and develop water conservation and/or alternative water supplies to address any
unforeseen shortfall in water supply to all users. The only Matrix recommendation is for a
Ground Water Monitoring Plan. SVR and the other major property owners have all stated in
the past water court decrees of each entity the intent of the parties to develop a GMP. CRE
has prepared a GMP and efforts to get a consensus plan among the water users has failed
due to the other water users opposition to the project.
Page 6 of 6
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Colorado River Engineering, Inc.
Michael Erion, P.E.
Principal Water Resources Engineer
1254
MJE/mje
Cc: Daniel Goldberg
Craig Corona, Esq
Page 1 of 7
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
November 27, 2024 (updated January 9, 2025)
Storied Development LLC
c/o Jeff Butterworth
Via: JButterworth@storiedliving.com
RE: Spring Valley Ranch – Response to Matrix Design Group, Inc. Review Letter – Aquifer
Sustainability and Well Yield Physical Water Supply
Dear Jeff:
At the request of Storied Development, LLC, this letter presents the technical response to questions
and comments provided by Matrix Design Group, Inc. (“Matrix”) in its September 6, 2024 review letter
for Garfield County. Colorado River Engineering, Inc. (“CRE”) is addressing comments 1, 2, 3, and 5.
Comments 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Roaring Fork Engineering (“RFE”) in a separate response. The
January 9, 2025 update to this letter is reflected in the responses to Comment No. 2 and provides
reference to the final LRE Water report dated March 8, 2025.
SUMMARY
The responses below provide information on 15 wells that have been drilled on the Spring Valley Ranch
project property. Pumping tests on 9 wells demonstrate that Spring Valley Ranch has an adequate
physical water supply for the project and 18 additional wells can be developed on the property. In
addition, the Spring Valley Aquifer is a known groundwater resource specifically recognized by the
Colorado Division of Water Resources. The Spring Valley Aquifer has been characterized by private
consultants, the Colorado Geological Survey, and the US Geological Survey. The sustainability of the
aquifer has been analyzed and peer reviewed by numerous consultants. CRE has provided a current
analysis with more refined data and analysis incorporating drier and hotter climate conditions that
demonstrates the groundwater resource can supply the anticipated future demands of the Spring Valley
Project and other existing/future projects.
Spring Valley Ranch owns all of the water rights on Landis Creek. There is no local call from senior
water rights on Landis Creek or Red Canyon Creek. Spring Valley Ranch is in BWCD Contract Service
Area A and is subject only to a downstream call on the Roaring Fork or Colorado Rivers. Releases
from Ruedi Reservoir pursuant to BWCD Contract Nos. 43 and 328 and the decrees in Case Nos.
84CW212, 98CW255, and 22CW3009 will augment downstream depletions on the Roaring Fork or
Colorado Rivers.
Spring Valley Ranch has demonstrated an adequate legal and physical water supply for the project.
Page 2 of 7
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
Comment 1 – Spring Valley Aquifer Physical Water Supply
The Matrix comment seeks additional information on the geology and characterization of the Spring
Valley Aquifer (“SVA”) groundwater resource. Matrix also makes an observation that the area is dry
arid climate with limited surface streamflows and Consolidated Reservoir in the adjacent drainage has
very little storage throughout the year. In response, it should be noted that the annual precipitation for
the tributary area for the SVA ranges from 16 inches to 30 inches. The surface soils and geology have
a high infiltration rate. Consolidated Reservoir is an irrigation reservoir that is full or could be full, usually
at the start of the irrigation season, but then continually drops in storage due to evaporation, seepage,
and irrigation releases. Thus, it is not an indicator of “limited streamflows” in the area.”
The SVA has been studied and characterized by Jerome Gamba and Associates in its March 10, 2000
report titled The Spring Valley Hydrologic System and by the Colorado Geological Survey/US
Geological Survey in the Geological Society of America Special Paper 366, 2002 titled Evaporite
Tectonism in the Lower Roaring Fork Valley, West Central Colorado. (Copies attached in Appendix A).
The Gamba study is summarized in the April 11, 2024 CRE report titled Spring Valley Aquifer
Sustainability Study. The CGS/USGS report utilizes data from the Spring Valley Ranch wells and
confirms the geological characterization presented by Gamba. The SVA is located in a closed basin
created by a collapse in the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite which caused the Maroon formation
bedrock to shear at a fault line on the west side of the valley. The CGS/USGS report also provides an
alternative theory that a large block of the Maroon formation “rafted” toward the Roaring Fork River
Valley, leaving behind a closed basin. In both scenarios, the closed basin was a lake that filled with
alluvial, lacustrine (lake), and colluvial deposits creating a groundwater resource. The CGS/USGS
report states that “When early settlers first homesteaded this region, Spring Valley was a closed
depression and a lake occupied much of the valley floor (Calvin Cox, 1994, personal commun.). The
presence of lacustrine sediments beneath much of the valley supports this conclusion. The settlers
hand dug a drain ditch at the north end of the valley shortly before the end of the 19th century, drained
the lake, and turned the valley floor into agricultural land.” The characterization of the SVA is visually
presented in the attached Figures 1 and 2 from the two reports.
Due to the collapse or rafting of the bedrock, the land surrounding the basin became over-steepened
and experienced landslides. The resulting landslide deposits with large scarps or benches are
unconsolidated material containing large blocks of basalt and bouldery basalt rubble. The landslide
deposits and underlying fractured Maroon formation provide “upland aquifers” that are tributary to the
SVA. The surface and subsurface flow of water is towards the SVA. This conclusion, visually shown
on Figures 1 and 2, is supported by springs that emerge from the hillside to the east, wells drilled into
these “upland aquifers”, and a groundwater ridge to the west on Los Amigos Mesa and to the north on
Lookout Mountain. A continuous groundwater gradient to the southwest towards CMC, and to the
northwest towards Red Canyon, appear to be the discharge areas out of the SVA, into the Maroon
Page 3 of 7
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
formation, and ultimately to the Roaring Fork River. The aquifer deposits appear to seal the fault on the
west end of the SVA.
The SVA and the adjacent upland aquifers to the east have a significant amount of pore space storage
of groundwater. Gamba conservatively estimated that the SVA has between 38,000 and 46,000 acre
feet of storage and the upland aquifers have between 30,000 and 60,000 acre feet of storage. HRS
Water Consultants, Inc. peer reviewed the Gamba report in a March 10, 2000 letter (see Appendix A)
and estimated there is a total of 82,000 acre feet of storage in the Spring Valley area aquifers.
HRS also analyzed soils data and determined that the soils have high infiltration rates and low soil
moisture holding capacity, supporting the conclusion that a significant amount of the precipitation
infiltrates the soils and reaches the groundwater. Water is not tied up and trapped in the soil on a
cumulative basis year after year. HRS concluded that the average aquifer recharge rate is estimated
at 4,700 acre feet per year.
The CRE aquifer sustainability report estimated the annual recharge at approximately 3,950 acre feet
per year. This analysis includes several conservative assumptions. First, the full annual amount of ET
from vegetation was assumed to deplete the available precipitation inputs, regardless of whether water
was available in soil moisture and available to plants or not. Based on the low soil moisture holding
capacity and the distribution of precipitation throughout the year, adequate soil moisture would not be
available throughout the growing season. This assumption can account for water tied up in the soil that
is ultimately lost from the system. Second, the surface water runoff in Landis Creek that leaves the
basin down Red Canyon (600 acre feet apparently based on the WWE observations) is significantly
overstated and likely includes runoff from the Red Canyon Creek basin not tributary to Spring Valley.
In addition, any surface water flowing through Spring Valley to the northwest is diverted and used to
flood irrigate hay and pasture land. A portion of this surface flow will return to the groundwater after
application to the ground for irrigation. In addition, the ET depletions from the ground cover within the
tributary basin includes irrigation that occurs with the surface water flow.
The CRE aquifer sustainability study (and prior studies) do not include an estimate for discharge from
the aquifer in the comparison of water demands and annual recharge because the aquifer is a flow
through system with significant storage. The rate of discharge to the Roaring Fork River is likely a
function of the aquifer elevation, the higher the elevation the larger the ground water gradient controlling
the flow of groundwater.
Comment 2 – Existing Well Yield
The Matrix comment questions whether the pumping tests conducted by LRE Water demonstrate firm
yields as presented in the March 8, 2023 LRE Water report titled Spring Valley Ranch Physical Water
Supply Report. Matrix identified a concern with large drawdown of 340 feet in one of the wells. In
Page 4 of 7
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
response, the actual drawdown in SVH Well No. 10 was 245 feet, the 340-foot number was the depth
to groundwater. The large drawdown was due to the initial pumping rate of 40 gpm and the average
pumping rate of 11 gpm in a well that yields about 10 gpm. Regardless, SVR Well No. 10 will not be
used as a production well for the project.
The proposed water supply plan for the potable water system outlined by RFE is to develop at least 315
gpm from wells on the Middle Bench and on the mountain. The 315 gpm represents the maximum peak
day demand in June and July. During this time frame, the aquifer recharge from snowmelt is at higher
rates and well yields are anticipated to be higher than during the winter months when pumping tests
have been conducted on the wells.
As described below, there are five existing wells drilled on the Middle Bench with a long-term yield
estimated at 205 gpm. There is an existing well on the mountain below Hopkins Reservoir with a yield
of 75 gpm for a total of 280 gpm. Spring Valley Ranch can develop two additional decreed wells on the
Middle Bench, and has the right to develop up to 18 additional wells on the property. The additional
capacity can be added in the future when the project builds out and the water demand requires
additional supply.
In addition, there are three high capacity SVA wells. The three wells have been tested with a combined
long-term yield of approximately 600 gpm. Additional high-capacity wells can be developed in the SVA.
It is proposed to use the SVA wells to provide supplemental irrigation water for open space and golf
course areas, and to supply the snowmaking demand.
Fifteen wells have been drilled on the Spring Valley Ranch property to characterize the sub surface
geology and to evaluate the yield of wells in the SVA and the adjacent upland aquifers. The locations
of the wells are shown on the attached Figure 3. Pumping tests of these wells have occurred during
winter months when the seasonal groundwater elevations are lowest and the recharge is low. LRE
Water conducted pumping tests in the winter of 2022/2023 on eight of the wells, including one in the
SVA, five on the Middle Bench, and two in the upper mountain. RFE conducted pumping tests on one
Middle Bench well and one SVA well in 2021. WWE conducted pumping tests on three Middle Bench
wells in 1998, 1999 and 2000, and one SVA well in 2000. A summary of the well permits, well
construction data, and pumping tests is provided on the attached Table 1.
WWE conducted a 2 week pumping test on SVR Well No. 6 from February 29, 2000 – March 13, 2000.
The results are summarized in the attached March 21, 2000 letter and indicate a 250 gpm plus yield
from the SVA with pumping effects observed in a well 500 feet away, but not in a well 700 feet away.
WWE conducted several 24-hour tests in 1998 and 1999 on Middle Bench wells SVR Well No. 20
(Gamba No. 1), ASR Well No. 13 (Gamba No. 3), and ASR Well No. 14 (Gamba No. 4). WWE then
conducted testing in winter of 2000 for 11 days on SVR Well No. 20, for 36 days on ASR Well No. 13,
Page 5 of 7
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
and for 16 days on ASR Well No. 14. WWE opined that the wells had reliable yields of 30 gpm, 75 gpm,
and 30 gpm respectively for a total of 135 gpm.
RFE conducted 24-hour pumping tests on SVR Well No. 17 and SVR Well No. 20 in the fall of 2021.
SVR Well No. 17 is in the SVA, was pumped at 95 gpm, and can reliably yield at least 95 gpm. SVR
Well No. 20 is on the Middle Bench, was pumped at 65 gpm, and can reliably yield at least 30 gpm as
indicated in the WWE testing.
LRE Water conducted 24-hour pumping tests on 8 wells as described in the March 8, 2023 report
submitted with the current application to Garfield County. The SVA well tested by LRE Water was Spring
Valley Well No. 1. The LRE Water report data indicates that this SVA well can reliably yield at least
250 gpm and can pump at rates up to 550 gpm.
Well 36569-MH located on the mountain below Hopkins Reservoir was pumped at 100 gpm and could
reliably yield at least 75 gpm. The LRE analysis indicates that the well could be pumped at rates up to
195 gpm.
The Middle Bench wells have estimated long-term yields as follows. SVR Well No. 10 was pumped at
an average rate of 11 gpm and could reliably yield approximately 10 gpm. SVR Well No. 14 was
pumped at an average rate of 10 gpm and has a reliable yield of at least 30 gpm as indicated in prior
testing by WWE. SVR Well No. 15 was pumped at an average rate of 79 gpm and has a reliable yield
of at least 50 gpm. ASR Well No. 16 was pumped at an average rate of 54 gpm and appears to have
a reliable yield of approximately 20 gpm. SVR Well No. 20 was pumped at an average rate of 52 gpm
and confirms a reliable yield of at least 30 gpm. The LRE analysis indicates that the Middle Bench wells
could be pumped at rates up to more than 400 gpm.
The above pumping tests indicate that the SVA wells yield approximately 600 gpm. The current wells
on the Middle Bench have a reliable yield estimated at approximately 205 gpm. In addition, the
mountain well below Hopkins Reservoir adds another 75 gpm for a total of 280 gpm for the central
potable water system. The Spring Valley Ranch can develop one or two additional wells on the Middle
Bench at some point in the future when the potable water system demand requires additional supplies.
In the event the Middle Bench wells do not provide the full buildout potable water supply, one of the
SVA wells can be added to the potable water system. The pumping tests demonstrate that the
groundwater resources on the property are adequate to provide the physical water supply for the project.
Additional high capacity SVA wells can be developed and up to 18 additional wells can be drilled on the
property.
The LRE Water pumping tests and the RFE pumping tests included laboratory analysis of water
samples from the wells. The water quality results indicate that the groundwater resource is suitable for
Page 6 of 7
Colorado River Engineering
P.O. Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-4933
drinking water. The RFE Water Supply and Distribution report dated February 2, 2023 (updated
December 3, 2024) provides more detail.
Spring Valley Ranch has demonstrated an adequate physical water supply for the project.
Comment 3 – Irrigation Demand
The Matrix comment is that the annual consumptive use rate of 1.79 AF/acre stated in the Legal Water
Supply Report is low. There appears to be a consumptive use rate of 2.13 AF/acre in one report, there
is an apparent inconsistency in irrigation efficiency (67% vs 80%), an inconsistency in the peak daily
application rate (0.12 inch vs 0.22 inch), and an inconsistency in the golf course acreage (100 acres vs
124 acres).
The Legal Water Supply Report presents the decreed consumptive use rate of 1.79 AF/acre as decreed
in Case No. 98CW254 for the project and the value was based on the cooler and wetter climate data in
the 1990’s. The engineering tables are based on a consumptive use rate of 2.13 AF/acre (calculated
using climate data through 2020) and an irrigation efficiency of 80%. The Golf Course can have up to
124 acres of irrigation, which equates to a demand of 329 AF using 2.13 AF/acre and 80% irrigation
efficiency. The 100 acres in the RFE report was a typo and Matrix back calculated an efficiency of 67%
based on 100 acres of irrigation. The application of 0.12 inch in July in the RFE report appears to be a
typo. CRE agrees that the estimated water demand is 0.22 inch per day in July.
Comment 5 – Legal Water Supply
The Matrix comment raises questions about a local water rights administrative call on Landis Creek and
the flow of water in Landis Creek downstream from the project. Landis Creek terminates in Spring
Valley. The potential flow of water to the north is a ditch that could convey high flows from runoff into
Red Canyon Creek. Red Canyon Creek only flows during snowmelt and rainstorm runoff events.
Spring Valley Ranch owns all of the water rights on Landis Creek. There is no local call from senior
water rights on Landis Creek or Red Canyon Creek. Spring Valley Ranch will sweep the flow in Landis
Creek at its historic headgate consistent with historic irrigation practices. Spring Valley Ranch is in
BWCD Contract Service Area A and is subject only to a downstream call on the Roaring Fork or
Colorado Rivers. Releases from Ruedi Reservoir pursuant to BWCD Contract Nos. 43 and 328 and
the decrees in Case Nos. 84CW212, 98CW255, and 22CW3009 will augment downstream depletions
on the Roaring Fork or Colorado Rivers.
Spring Valley Ranch has demonstrated an adequate legal water supply for the project.
Evaporite tectonism in the lower Roaring Fork River valley, west-central Colorado 91
Figure 16. Schematic cross sections (E–E) showing two possible interpretations of the subsurface geology through Spring Valley. Upper cross
section depicts the Spring Valley structure as a half graben chiefly due to removal of evaporite from beneath the valley by dissolution. In the
lower cross section, the Spring Valley structure is shown as a pull-apart feature caused by evaporite flow toward the Roaring Fork River valley.
Location of cross section shown on Figure 2.
model, the sediment deposited in the Spring Valley structure
would directly overlie evaporite.
Strain along the southern margin of thehypothesizedrafted
block may be largely lateral shearing. The strain would occur
as sinistral-strike slip or oblique slip along a narrow, arcuate
fault zone that starts in the southeast corner of the structure,
bends to a nearly west trend, and disappears into the evaporitic
rocks that crop out beneath the volcanic rocks on the east wall
of the river valley (Fig. 2). Lateral strain on thenorthernmargin
of a rafted Spring Valley structure would in part be accom-
modated by thenarrow grabenthatextendsnorthwestwardfrom
Spring Valley and in part by the complex fault swarm between
the graben and the river valley.
Minor structures.Several small synclinal sags deform the
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/book/510/chapter-pdf/967736/i0-8137-2366-3-366-0-73.pdf
by Colorado School of Mines user
on 31 March 2022
FIGURE 1
C
a
ttl
e
Creek
LandisCreek
LandisC reek
F i s h e r Creek
D
e
v
i
l
s
H
o
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
Ca t t le Creek
D
eadmansCreek
Me
s
a
C
r
e
e
k
Bear Creek
Grindsto
n
e
C
r
e
e
k
Old
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
8
2
C
M
C
CM
C
Cottonwoo
d
Pass
Old Dump
C
o
r
y
e
l
l
Fis
h
e
r
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
Ki
n
d
a
l
l
Cottonwood Pass
H
a
r
d
w
i
c
k
B
r
i
d
g
e
Fi
s
h
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
L
o
o
k
o
u
t
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
e
d
C
a
n
y
o
n
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User
Community4
Legend
Spring Valley Aquifer
SVA_Tributary_Area
CountyRoads040711All_Named_NHDFlowline
FType
Rivers
Ditches
Connector
Pipeline
Streams
Ql
Tb
PPM
Document Name: SpringValleyRanchAquifer.mxd
Drawn by: WR Approved by: WR Date: 4/4/2024
PO Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
Tel 970-625-4933
1,
4
0
0
2,
8
0
0
0
Graphic Scale in Feet
Client:
Figure:Spring Valley Aquifer
Geologic Units 2
1273: Spring Valley Ranch
Spring Valley RanchMap Key
Garfield County Parcels
Property Line
Spring Valley Holdings LLC
Well Location Source
!(Alta Survey 2022
!(LRE GPS 2022
!(WWE Well Map 2001
!(Not Drilled (Decreed)
Data Sources:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey
CO Department of Water Resources
CO Department of Transportation
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
36567-MH
(Gamba #5)
36569-MH
(Gamba #6)
36760-MH
ASR Well No. 15
(Gamba #1A)
51363-F
Spring Valley Ranch
Well No. 2 56722-F
SVH Well No. 10
86627-F
SVR Well No. 17
(WELL #03-2A)
86628-F
SVR Well No. 20
(Gamba #1)
86629-F
ASR Well No. 16
(Gamba #8)
86630-F
Spring Valley
Well No. 1
86631-F
Spring Valley Ranch
Well No. 3
76874-F
SVR Well No. 21
66298-F
ASR Well No. 13
(Gamba #3)
66299-F
ASR Well No. 14
(Gamba #4)
56717-F
SVH Well No. 5
56719-F
SVH Well No. 7
56720-F
SVH Well No. 8
56721-F
SVH Well No. 9
68886-F
SVR Well No. 19
68887-F
SVR Well No. 18
251164-
WELL #03-1251165-
WELL #03-2
251166-
WELL #03-3
35164-MH
Gamba #2
68889-F
SVH Well No. 6
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community
Document Name: Figure 3 - SVR Well Inventory.mxd
Drawn by: JT
Figure:
PO Box 1301
Rifle, CO 81650
Tel 970-625-4933 Client:
Date: 11/21/2024Approved by: MG
3
1273
Well Inventory
:
1,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0
0
Graphic Scale in Feet
Legal Name Shown on Maps by 1,2,3,4,5,6 Permit No. Associated Permit Associated Case Status UTMX UTMY Applicant Well
Depth (ft)
Yield
(gpm)
Static Water
Level (ft)
Total Depth
(ft)Yield (gpm)Static Water
Level (ft)Yield (gpm)Static Water
Level (ft)
Field Well
Depth (ft)
Static Water
Level (ft)
Top of
Casing (in)
Spring Valley Well No. 1 LRE, WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 86630-F 23334-F, 28959-F, 324058-,
56716-F, 51362-F
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 307104.8 4375360.0
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC (ARDENNE, MARTIN V.)305 300 18 300 22 360 18.8 17
Spring Valley Ranch Well No. 2 LRE, WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 51363-F 12722-AD, 28960-F, 23679-
F
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 307215.3 4375575.2
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC 0 0 0 20 6 207 4.6 4
Spring Valley Ranch Well No. 3 LRE, WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 86631-F 96896-, 23518-F, 28961-F,
52185-F
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 306850.4 4375444.8
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC (ARDENNE, MARTIN V.)111 20 25 10 44 69.4 39.7 17.5
SVR Well No. 17 LRE, Alta Survey 86627-F 66297-F, 251755-, 324057- 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 307746.9 4374255.8
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC (ARDENNE, MARTIN V.)320 100+ 9 75 - 300
0 and flowing
out 30
SVR Well No. 21 LRE 76874-F 67700-F, 276909- 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 307176.5 4375951.5
LAGIGLIA LOUIS &
DONNALYNE 80 10 43 -- - 52 -
SVR Well No. 20 (Gamba #1) LRE, WWE, Alta Survey 86628-F 68885-F, 34995-MH,
324055-, 66562-F 22CW3009 Well
Constructed 310198.7 4375286.2
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC (ARDENNE, MARTIN V.)223 95 105 220 30 107 51.69 113 250.3 110.8 13.5
ASR Well No. 13 (Gamba #3) LRE, WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 66298-F 35174-MH 82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 309141.1 4376515.5
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC 200 90 140 202 75+ 138 -- 212 143.1 32
ASR Well No. 14 (Gamba #4) LRE, WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 66299-F 35175-MH 82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 309490.1 4376213.5
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC 180 90 134 182 30-50 137 10 143.6 181.5 114 28
ASR Well No. 15 (Gamba #1A) LRE, WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 36760-MH -82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 310264.6 4375236.5 SPRING VALLEY DEV INC 220 100 105 100 112.8 209.6 111.5 18.5
ASR Well No. 16 (Gamba #8) LRE, CRE, Alta Survey 86629-F 245477-, 66563-F, 68888-F,
324056-
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 308943.8 4377148.5
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC (ARDENNE, MARTIN V.)260 50 23 60 20.25 152 18.9 21
35164-MH (Gamba #2) LRE, Alta Survey 35164-MH 251166-, Possibly 31598- -
Well
Constructed 311097.7 4374426.6 ASPEN SPRINGS RANCH 455 55 330 -- 364 320.6 18.5
36567-MH (Gamba #5) LRE, WWE, Alta Survey 36567-MH --Well
Constructed 310413.6 4378043.2 SPRING VALLEY DEV INC 250 6 70 7.7 89
36569-MH (Gamba #6) LRE, WWE, Alta Survey 36569-MH 35171-MH -Well
Constructed 310020.7 4378457.2 SPRING VALLEY DVLP INC 163 70 10 100 20 175 8.9 -
SVH Well. No 6 WWE, CRE, Alta Survey 68889-F 51365-F, 28963-F, 56718-F,
12725-AD
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009 Permit Issued 306963.3 4375306.4
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC 400 250 125 470 0 4.4
SVH Well. No 10 LRE, CRE, Alta Survey 33819-MH 28967-F, 51369-F, 10102-
AD, 12729-AD, 56722-F
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009
Well
Constructed 309862.5 4375250.1 SPRING VALLEY RANCH 360 15 90 11.4 95.7 346 121.4 -
SVH Well. No 5 CRE, Alta Survey 56717-F 28962-F, 51364-F 82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009 Permit Issued 307250.7 4375474.5
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC
SVH Well. No 7 CRE, Alta Survey 56719-F 28964-F, 51366-F 82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009 Permit Issued 307359.8 4375712.9
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC
SVH Well. No 8 CRE, Alta Survey 56720-F 28965-F, 51367-F 82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009 Permit Issued 309498.0 4375620.9
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC
SVH Well. No 9 CRE, Alta Survey 56721-F 28966-F, 51368-F, 10101-
AD
82CW0075, 84CW0212, 87CW0155, 98CW0255,
98CW0254, W3298, 22CW3009 Permit Issued 309600.8 4375527.3
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC
SVR Well No. 18 Alta Survey 68887-F 66560-F 22CW3009 Permit Issued 307602.9 4374224.2
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC
SVR Well No. 19 Alta Survey 68886-F 66561-F 22CW3009 Permit Issued 307633.3 4374072.8
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC
SVR Ranch House DWR only 274091---Well
Constructed 307133.0 4375953.7
SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS
LLC 80 15 46
Well #03-1 Alta Survey 251164---Well
Constructed 308523.6 4373784.9
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC 280 50 92
Well #03-2 Alta Survey 251165---Permit
Expired 307792.6 4373967.2
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC
Well #03-3 Alta Survey 251166---Permit
Expired 310496.7 4374895.5
SPRING VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT INC
Gamba #7 WWE ----- --
Data references:
1.)WWE - Report w/ Map "Spring Valley Upland Aquifer Pumping Tests - 2000" (2000-03-10) by Wright Water Engineers, Inc (Gamba Wells #1, 3, and 4 tested Jan/Feb 2000)
2.)WWE - Report w/ Map "Spring Valley Ranch Well No. 6" (2000-03-21) by Wright Water Engineers, Inc (SVR Well No. 6 tested Feb 29, 2000)
3.)LRE - Map "Spring Valley Ranch Well Locations and Pumping Test Rates", (2022-10-10) by LRE Water. Map shows Yield and Static Water Level of tested wells
4.)CRE - Map "Water Rights Summary Map", (2022-12-06) by Colorado River Engineering
5.)Alta Survey - Map obtained from Roaring Fork Engineering (data collected in 2022)
6.)DWR - Colorado Division of Water Resources data from well attribute tables and Well Construction Reports (data accessed October 2024)
7.)RFE - Table provided by Roaring Fork Engineering summarizing Static Water Level, Field Depth, and Top of Casing of tested wells (2024-10-22)
Table 1
Spring Valley Ranch Well Inventory
No Well Completion Report
RFE Measurement 2024 7
Not located - due to snow
Not Located - DNE
Possible duplicate of SVR Well No.
Well Description LRE Measurement 2022 3DWR Well Data 5 WWE Measurement 2000 1,2
Colorado River Engineering 11/21/2024