The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSVR Referral Comment Packet 09.12.2024 Community Development Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendments (File PUAA-05-23-8967) Referral Comments Thank you for your interest in the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. Attached are the referral comments we have received as of September 10, 2024. Due to the size and complexity of the application, we expect supplemental information from the applicant as well as updated information from some referral agencies. Please check back periodically for updates and please date any comments you submit. You can contact either Glenn Hartman or Philp Berry with questions on the process or with comments on the application. Glenn Hartmann Director 970-945-1377 x1570 Ghartmann@garfield-county.com Philip Berry, AICP Planner III Office: 970-945-1377 x1580 Pberry@garfield-county.com 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 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 2 Community Development Department 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: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 <jason.cox@blackhillscorp.com>; stewart.v.clark@xcelenergy.com; kelli.flenniken@xcelenergy.com; Samantha Wakefield (samantha.l.wakefield@xcelenergy.com) <Samantha.l.wakefield@xcelenergy.com> Cc: Philip Berry <pberry@garfield-county.com>; Jon Fredericks <jon@landwestcolorado.com> Subject: Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment Referral Request Referral Agencies: Attached is a Referral Request for the Spring Valley Ranch PUD Amendment. It is a substantial amendment that will be reviewed through future public hearings with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. It 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 2008/2010 and earlier. A link to access the Application electronically is included in the referral request and provided below: https://records.garfield-county.com/WebLink/browse.aspx? id=3996323&dbid=0&repo=GarfieldCounty Please provide your comments directly to both our emails: ghartmann@garfield-county.com and pberry@garfield-county.com We’re requesting comments by 2/9/24 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 x1570 Ghartmann@garfield-county.com 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