The Spring Valley Ranch Development amendment proposal has a lot of citizens throughout the valley concerned. The existing PUD which was initially approved several decades ago, is no longer a wise choice for Spring Valley, Glenwood Springs, or Garfield County no matter what the requested amendment offers. The amendment proposal irresponsibly wants to waste precious natural resources (largely water and open space), displace wildlife, and increase traffic, pollution, and fire safety issues, all for the sake of creating an elite, private “Lifestyle Community” that offers very little for the general public.

As a quickly growing group of concerned citizens with varied backgrounds, expertise, and interests, the Spring Valley Coalition is slowly working its way through research and outreach to draw light on the major concerns that should not be fast-tracked for approval. To help share what we have learned and educate others we have assembled the following information.

*NOTE: We the coalition have made every effort to create accurate information to the best of our abilities using research assembled from multiple sources and experts including studies and documents provided by the current developer, county resources, third-party resources, and historical documents from the previous failed development attempts of this land. We care passionately about the accuracy and details we are sharing, but we encourage everyone to formulate their own thoughts and concerns about this development.*

The extreme amount of water proposed for use with this project may cause existing home wells to go dry across Spring Valley.

• SVR states they will use 407,274 gallons per day (gpd) for the 577 domestic homes and lawn irrigation for all the homes.
• SVR states they will use 33,925 gpd in their commercial buildings (store, club house, etc.)
• SVR states they will use an additional 500,960 gpd just to water the private golf course from April through October.
• Total use of approximately 1,000,000 gallons of water per day during the summer months in an area where some local homeowners already have reduced water production from their wells during dry summer months!
• The SVR proposed lower well will be located at approximately 7,000 feet in elevation and will pump all 500,960 gallons/day of raw water for the golf course and approximately 500,000 gpd for snowmaking at the ski area.  For perspective, the 7,000-foot elevation is the approximate elevation of both CR115 (Red Canyon Road) and Kindall Road.  Almost all domestic wells in the area use the same aquifer and are located above this elevation and the continuous drawdown of approximately 500,000 gallons/day for luxury amenities of a golf course and a ski area will likely impact the water yield of many of the existing wells.
• SVR says they have all the decreed water rights necessary to pump that much.  Exempt wells of private homeowners do not require a decreed water right so there’s no uniform system of accounting for that water and no reliable means of measuring the amount that is used or how much the total SVR drawdown of 1 million gpd will affect those wells. Approval of this development is inappropriate without guarantees that SVR water use will not negatively impact others when there are so many existing households that rely on the aquifer for all their home domestic water. 
• If this proposal is approved, the proponent should be required to include a discussion on how they intend to manage golf course watering and other irrigation during extended periods of no rain and drought as part of their application and mitigation plan.  Additionally, if the development moves forward with an approved golf course, SVR must be required to commit to immediately curtailing golf course irrigation to ensure no injury occurs to the existing local domestic water wells when they begin to “dry up” more than they already are.   

SVR says they will use 46 acre-feet per month during winter months to make snow at their private ski area.

• This equates to approximately 500,000 gpd for December, January, and February.
• They will still be using a significant additional amount of 440,000+ gpd water for domestic uses in the 577 homes during the winter.
• The ski area is proposed for a south facing slope that is designated winter range for elk and deer.  There are reasons elk and deer use south facing slopes as winter range; there’s good food and a limited amount of snow.
• It makes no sense to build a ski area on south facing slopes at this elevation.  It will require extensive snow making and it is questionable whether enough snow will be there for skiing, but they will use up the limited water supply trying if this portion of the SVR proposal is approved.
• Noise from snowmaking guns running all night long during the coldest temperature, and when feasible, during the day will reverberate across the whole valley.
• SVR apparently does not currently hold sufficient water rights to make snow.
• 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 all of the Spring Valley area. 
• The persistent drought condition continues and is expected to continue with global climate change.  There should be no approval of the excessive use of water for luxury amenities such as a golf course and for making snow on a south-facing ski area when significant water shortages within the Colorado River basin are expected.

Wildlife, particularly deer and elk, will suffer from this development.

• The elk using the property are managed as part of the Fryingpan River Herd (DAU E-16). Elk activity on the property, mapped by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), includes summer range, winter range, production range and severe winter range.  The production range (elk calving) and winter range are arguably the most important for the elk.
• SVR boasts that they will “avoid impacts to 54% (3,148 acres) of the elk winter range by placing it in designated open space”; and “providing 1,100 acres of Wildlife Habitat Reserves”.  Much of the “open space” the development proposes seems to include the golf courses!  There is no longer elk/deer forage vegetation once “open space” is converted to a golf course.  Additionally, elk and deer will not stay in a pasture like “Wildlife Habitat Reserve” such as domestic livestock and will be displaced due to all the development related activity adjacent to these lands.
• The SVR proposed homesites, access roads and the ski area are located almost 100% within the designated winter range outlined by CPW.  The disturbance by original construction and then the future residents and all their associated activity will cause undue stress to the animals during the winter months.  That represents potentially serious impacts to elk and deer since the impact occurs when animals are in a weakened condition, food supplies are low, and the ability to conserve energy is critical to the animal’s survival.
• The proposed development of the SVR infrastructure (homes, roads, golf course, ski area) expands east to west across much of the remaining open space between the High Alpine Ranch and Lookout Mountain homes and will cut off the annual migration corridor of the animals when they move north and south (up and downhill) between summer and winter range.
• Elk and deer would be displaced due to the lack of security resulting from construction, and then hikers, dogs and other pets running free, bicyclists, and/or equestrian use during the equally critical calving/fawning season.
• The E-16 (Fryingpan Elk Herd) calf ratio has been declining since 1996 (CPW 2013), a sign that herd productivity is declining and a concerning metric for wildlife managers.  Any further reduction of the winter and production ranges will only exacerbate the situation.
• A total of 1,551 acres of land is mapped within the SVR proposal by CPW as production range.  Those are the areas where elk calve.  These areas are critical for maintaining the herd and a 1,551 acres loss may impact the elk herd in this area to a point where it cannot recover.
• The SVR proposal states the “Development Plan avoids impact to 68% (1,047 acres) of the mapped production range on Spring Valley Ranch.”  This apparently is intended to mean that no homes or roads will be constructed directly upon those lands, but much of the CPW mapped production range is right where SVR conceptual maps show home building squarely in that production range.  However, even if SVR does not ultimately build homes directly within the mapped production range, avoiding the direct impact of homes and roads will not prevent disturbance and displacement caused by human and development related activity near those lands and the animals that currently utilize them.  Many studies have shown that elk are not tolerant to adjacent human activities.
• Another impact to wildlife is the planned wildfire mitigation of thinning vegetation along CR115 and other areas of the development.  While necessary to help mitigate wildfire risk, this vegetation treatment is within winter range and will further degrade these critical areas of forage for the animals.

Traffic on Hwy 82 is already at critical levels and the estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) from this development will increase the safety and traffic congestion issues significantly.

• SVR states that, at build-out, they expect the trips generated to be between 5,315 and 5,703 new vehicle trips/average weekday being dumped on to Hwy 82.
• Morning and evening commutes on Hwy 82 already exhibit long traffic delays and an additional 5,700 cars is unimaginable.
• Wait times at the congested CR114 (CMC road) Hwy 82 intersection is extreme.  With the traffic increase one may have to wait for 3 or 4 traffic light cycles just to get on Hwy 82.  If the turning traffic light cycle timing is changed, then traffic already driving Hwy 82 will be delayed even more than it currently is.
• Safety issues with the short ingress and egress turn lanes off Hwy 82 and on to CR114 already create a significant safety issue due to backed up traffic waiting to turn and 5,000+ additional cars turning there would increase the possibility of long backups extending well into the traveling left lane of Hwy 82 and not be acceptable.

Impacts to CR114 (Colorado Mountain College Road) are unacceptable throughout this project.

• SVR contemplates and proposes a phased approach to some improvements at the CR114/Hwy82 intersection and along all CR114 that will create traffic nightmares for several years during the construction phase of the project.  If the project is approved, all improvements to these routes must be required to be completed prior to initiating construction on the SVR property and in a manner that does not continue for multiple years of route reconstruction.

• The Development Agreement (DA) proposed for the BOCC to sign; page 2 states – “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.”  If approved, this clause would create a vested right for SVR and the issues related to all traffic impacts listed in Phase 1 – 8 will be exacerbated if the developer has the right to decide to wait before completing the traffic related CR114 road improvements; or they could decide not to complete them at all.

• There is an inadequate description of what exactly, if any, “road improvements” would be.  The Development Agreement only describes how CR114 is currently constructed.

• The number of both pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing CR114  and CR115 has notably increased in recent years.  The additional vehicle traffic generated by the SVR proposal, both at buildout, and perhaps of even more concern, the heavy truck traffic expected throughout the construction phases will increase safety issues for these users to an alarming level without any means to mitigate it.

• Storied Development has suggested they would be willing to construct a bicycle path along CR114 to accommodate existing and future pedestrians and bicyclists along that route.  There is physically not enough space within the right-of-way of CR114 to construct a bike lane to current health and safety standards.  The number of cut and fill sections that exist would make the cost of such a path untenable.

• Storied Development has stated in at least one of their meetings that they could enlarge and use the CR114 Park & Ride lot for worker vehicles and transport the workers to their development site in vans.  That Park & Ride lot is already full every weekday and many weekends with vehicles of people using RFTA buses to go to work or to utilize the bike path so there is no space for additional vehicles.  It is also questionable whether RFTA would allow parking for people who don’t use RFTA or the bicycle path.

• During the “improvement” phases, contemplated over the course of several years, much of the traffic on CR114 that intends to go northbound on Hwy 82 will opt to use CR115 (Red Canyon Road) to avoid road reconstruction delays creating a huge safety and traffic flow issues on CR115 and at the CR115/Hwy 82 intersection.  Almost all Carbondale bound traffic (including heavy trucks) will likely utilize CR110, both coming and going to avoid the construction during multiple phases of CR114 work.  The traffic will far exceed any reasonable, or safe ADT level for either of these “alternative” routes.

Traffic increases utilizing CR110 (The Old Dump Road) that are sure to result from this proposal has not even been considered in the SVR Traffic Impact Study.

• The SVR Transportation Impact Study (TIS) lacks any discussion of the baseline actual existing condition or anticipated future condition on CR110 or the 113/110/Hwy 82 intersection.  In fact, SVR even deleted CR110 from their maps and cut photos off north of the road so as not to even display them.

• A significant portion of the traffic coming down or going up the Colorado Mountain College Road (CR 114) currently utilizes CR110 as a “cut-off route” if their destination is anywhere up-valley along Hwy 82.  A large portion of the increased traffic resulting from this proposal is very likely to continue use of CR110 as a cut-off creating serious safety issues on that route. 

• CR110 is a steep, winding, narrow road with very limited shoulders.  That much additional traffic will increase safety issues and further deteriorate the condition of the road.

• Vehicles speed on CR110 now and pose a safety issue to residents pulling out of driveways, pedestrians, and the bicycle traffic that utilizes this route. Traffic increases due to this proposal will significantly increase these issues.

• There is one particularly steep, shaded section that becomes extremely icy for extended periods in the winter. Vehicles frequently get stuck or spin out while heading up or down the road. 

• Use by heavy trucks associated with project construction or subsequent development maintenance will increase on this route, the safety issues and road surface deterioration will only increase.  CR110 was never constructed to accommodate repeated heavy truck use when it was first “paved” in recent years.

The increase in traffic at the CR113 (Cattle Creek Road) / CR110/ Hwy 82 intersection because of this proposal also has not been considered in the SVR Traffic Impact Study.

• The convergence of four separate routes (CR113, CR110 and two frontage roads) entering Hwy 82 from the east side of the intersection is currently a challenge, and this project with its associated traffic increases will exacerbate the issues that exist.

• This intersection already poses safety, traffic delay and traffic flow concerns with the current traffic. This has increasingly included heavy truck traffic from dump trucks to tractor-trailers making deliveries at businesses along lower Cattle Creek which further exacerbates the congestion and safety issues.

• Vehicles attempting to access Hwy 82 often block the intersection and create a situation where those turning off Hwy 82 and attempting to go north up CR110 or the north frontage road must stop, further blocking the intersection.  Any second vehicle turning off Hwy 82 ends up stopped within the actual Hwy 82 prism.

• A lack of any lane marking for left or right turns off 113/110 leads to vehicles blocking both lanes and further increasing wait times and congestion at the intersection.

• CR113 and the intersection at Hwy 82 becomes a major access route over Cottonwood Pass if/whenever Glenwood Canyon is closed during the non-winter months.  Traffic backups during those times are very significant and transportation safety issues will increase commensurately with this proposal as even more vehicles are thrown into the mix.  

• Considering the additional average daily traffic generated by the SVR proposal, and associated safety and traffic congestion issues expected to utilize this intersection, it is very concerning that there is no discussion, acknowledgment, or plan included anywhere in the application to address this issue. 

Our local roads structural integrity is at serious risk of rapid deterioration due to the traffic associated with the construction phases of the SVR project.

• All home and commercial construction projects require numerous heavy trucks to deliver building materials, road base and gravel for road construction, piping for water systems, etc.  577 homes + the commercial units will each require their share of heavy truck loads.  Numerous heavy load trucks will cause significant impacts to the structural integrity as well as safety issues for any roads used.  CR114, CR110, CR115 and even Hwy 82.

• None of the TIS calculations include impacts associated with construction traffic or the significant amount of construction related associated heavy load trucks necessary for project completion. 

CR114 (CMC Road) is the primary evacuation route if/when another wildfire occurs in the Spring Valley area and this development with its associated traffic will create congestion and significant safety issues for those trying to evacuate.

• Valley residents experienced the evacuation issues that arose from the South Canyon Fire, the Coal Seam Fire, the Spring Creek Fire, and the Lake Christine Fire to name but a few.  It may be a small part of our transportation issues, but when large wildfires strike, the ability to evacuate in an orderly, and safe manner is of primary importance.

• When these disasters occur, the first responders tend to be heading toward the fire while citizens are trying to get out with their families, their pets, their livestock, etc.  This creates even more safety issues with the two-way traffic and elevated emotions and distractions of those trying to evacuate.

• With 577 second homeowners who may not be familiar with the area, or escape routes, who will be responsible for their safety.

• Are local fire protection district personnel willing and able to protect the additional number of lives and homes that will be created by this development in a rural area?

The rural character of Spring Valley and the surrounding area will be forever destroyed by the SVR project. A long history of agricultural heritage and rural appeal could be permanently lost.

• The greater Roaring Fork Valley has changed significantly since the current Spring Valley Ranch proposal was submitted in 2008.  A luxury “Lifestyle” Development for second-home owners with private golf courses and a private south-facing ski area do not preserve or enhance what the existing community members love about living here. Wasting resources for excess, and selling out the existing community values to create new ones for people who do not currently live here is not appropriate in 2024 and will do nothing to save our rural character and agricultural heritage for future generations.
• The population throughout our valley has increased to a point where the quality of life is degrading for locals.

• Affordable housing is needed so much more than more buildings for additional second-home owners. 

• Global climate change and the on-going drought has contributed to water quantity and quality issues for the whole Colorado River water system and utilizing large quantities of this precious resource just to irrigate a golf course and a ski area is not appropriate. 

• Traffic issues throughout the valley seriously impact the quality of life, commute times and safety related concerns have increased significantly for everyone on Hwy 82 and other routes.

• The substantially sized local Spring Valley elk and deer herds will likely be reduced or conceivably disappear altogether due to displacement and disturbance caused by this development.

• Flocks of Canada geese, ducks, and other waterfowl that currently frequent Spring Valley during breeding season will leave due to a lack of standing runoff water after the proposed water use of the development depletes the water aquifers. 

• The sound of snowmaking machines will pierce the quiet night air and carry for miles across Spring Valley.  The bright lights of slope grooming equipment will be seen for miles almost every night all winter long.  Night light pollution from that number of homes will destroy star gazing opportunities in one of the few remaining “relatively dark” areas of the Roaring Fork Valley.

• The quiet, uncrowded character of the public National Forest lands on Little Grand Mesa adjacent to the development will change with an increase in equestrian use, bicycle use, motor vehicle uses and hiking use by people who will now have direct access to the area from the numerous miles of trail proposed.

• The stock growers who use the Little Grand Mesa area will be impacted by the increased recreational use on the public lands where they’ve grazed their livestock for decades.

• Red Canyon Road may be at risk of being closed due to traffic increases and maintenance capabilities; and at a minimum, the safety associated with being able to travel that “short-cut” route to Glenwood Springs will become drastically higher. For locals this road is a way of life and a staunch reminder that we still live rural. Losing access to it would be devasting on many levels, but especially for safety egress or ingress, and the workforce that relies on meeting response time requirements for their jobs. 

• Property values in the area will either increase to the point that many average people will not be able to afford the taxes on their homes, or conversely it may decrease values and desirability due to the loss of the rural setting. Either way, the development being proposed does not match the existing community character at all. The development is an invasion of someone else’s vision for what our community should look like and ultimately it will kill what is currently here.

• A clubhouse/lodge; dining facilities; health and wellness fitness facilities; event spaces; convenience store and services; retail stores; parking; fire station; community offices; and metropolitan district supporting facilities do not fit the existing rural character of Spring Valley and will destroy much of the appeal of the area to those who live and work from there. This development is basically adding a new town within Spring Valley.

• 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 infrastructure and impacts will significantly change the character of the area and potentially draw business from existing local slopes such as Sunlight Mountain Ski Resort.