HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030831.tiff a4 k,da y
,,,,,,,,
%p ig,.4
SPECIFIC
\i.� 1c'
'".w
GuiDate;; A
i a. x
DE LOPMENT "', 2,,,,,,,,,,4``"t_. , ,„.,.. ...,,,,,{,...„. -
, %OA: .,„
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO "°'
I
,, , DRAw FARm -7,„-,,:c itt
and I
1
aF'I,
"1%1 e
EQUESTRIAN CENTER
a`n 3
r ��
f . :(
• 5'
, . g,.
FILING Nos 2
,:::415,..
,,,,a4 5' ,,1 t,;ytyyf,a ia
4 w
3dE _
M ,• i
Prepared for app, a
REI, LLC x• R
ii
3600 S. Logan Street, Suite 200 " i
Englewood, CO 80110 °i
303/333-6000 •.„ ,`
303/333-5522 (Fax) 1 lei• ` i fi
Attn: Christine Hethcock ,-k `
n
kAt
August 30, 2002
{
2003-0831
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
A. General Location and Description
I. Location
Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center Filing No. 2 is located in Sections 4, 5,
8, 9, 10, and 17, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian in Weld County, Colorado, approximately 8 miles east of Platteville and
9 miles south of Greeley adjacent to Milton Reservoir. The proximity to the
Milton Reservoir provides an additional 2000 acres of recreational area to the
development's 4,300 acres, and was a primary reason the project was not
designated next to an existing municipality. In 1984,the Commissioners of Weld
County unanimously concluded that there was sufficient land to support
approximately 800 residential lots due to the substantial amount of open space
and that all required utilities and services could be provided.
Existing roadways adjacent to the project site are Weld County Road (WCR) 32
to the South, WCR 39 to the West and WCR 38 to the North. The primary site
access to Filing No.2 is the current entry where the major collector street, Beebe
Draw Farms Parkway intersects WCR 39. This entry is landscaped and has a
gatehouse which is used primarily by the Sheriffs department. There will be two
secondary accesses. One will be located at an existing entrance on the north line
of Section 5 from WCR 38 and the other will be located on WCR 32.
2. Description of the Property
Filing No. 2 is part of an overall Planned Unit Development ("PUD") which was
approved in December of 1984 by the Board of County Commissioners (the
"Commissioners") for residential and recreational uses on a 4,300 acre parcel of
land located near Milton Reservoir. Development of 803 lots was planned to
proceed in phases with the approved First Filing consisting of 188 lots and Filing
No.2 would consist of approximately 615 lots. This application is for a
substantially lower number of lots than was originally planned in order to comply
with the Resolution approved December 19, 2001 concerning substantial change
of PUD final plan. Filing No. 2 consists of 406 proposed lots on 2,307 acres,
including over 1,000 acres of open space and greenbelt area or forty-four percent
(44%)open space. Each lot is a minimum of 2.5 acres in size. This is a
significant decrease from the prior application, which included 536 lots with
minimum acreage per lot of 1.6 acres. This change enhances the rural feel and
preserves the projects scenic values and far exceeds the Weld County Health
Department's requirements for septic use. The build-out of these 406 lots is
anticipated to be approximately six to eight years. The project will be built in
phases based on the current market demand for lots. This absorption allows for
solid planning for services and a gradual impact from development.
In addition to the reduction in the total number of lots in the PUD,the Petitioner
has addressed the Board's concern about density by proposing a substantial
change with respect to wastewater management. In 1984 and again in 1989,the
Commissioners determined that wastewater treatment for each lot could be
accomplished by an engineered septic system. However, at the hearing on the
Second Filing application in September 2000, some members of the Board
expressed concern about the potential for harm to the soil and groundwater in the
event such systems were not properly maintained. In response to this concern, an
agreement has been made that the function of managing and maintaining septic
systems be under the auspices of the Metropolitan District serving Beebe Draw
Farms. The details of this proposal are contained in the Service Plan Addendum,
prepared by David Shupe, P.E., which is included in the Wastewater section of
this application. Under this plan, the Metropolitan District will provide a uniform
design for the septic system for each lot based on the specific design of the home
and lot. The District will levy a fee for services which will include annual
inspection of leach fields, pumping of septic tanks, installation and testing of
monitoring wells to provide information regarding downstream quality of
underground waters, and ongoing education in the proper care and use of systems
for all new owners, including water-use conservation techniques.
The Petitioner has met with all major service providers including schools, law
enforcement, fire and ambulance protection, Central Weld Water District and the
Weld County Health Department. Each of these service providers has ensured
that they will continue to serve Filing No.2. Letters from the providers have been
included in the Specific Development Plan.
Another concern raised by some members of the Board in the September 2000
hearing for the first submittal of Filing No. 2 was erosion control. Pursuant to a
permit from the Corps of Engineers requiring re-vegetation of all disturbed areas,
the Petitioner's current development plan calls for re-vegetation of all areas of
disturbed soils by seeding and fertilization in the developed areas of the First
Filing and around the marina, and it will continue to do so with respect to the
Second Filing. Additionally, the Declaration of Covenants for the First Filing,
which contains requirements concerning the landscaping of each lot, will be
expanded to include all lots in the Second Filing.
The P.U.D. restricts privacy-fenced areas to a maximum of 5% of the lot area. No
lot line fencing will be permitted. This restriction along with the 44% common
open space will result in a development that will complement the natural open
prairie environment of the site.
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
FOR
BEEBE DRAW FARMS AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER
FILING NO. 2
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1. Environmental Impacts
2. Service Provision Impacts
3. Landscaping Elements
4. Site Design
5. Common Open Space Usage
6. Signage
7. Mud Impact
8. Intergovernmental Agreement Impacts
1 . ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
and
EQUESTRIAN CENTER
FILING NO. 2
ERO Resources Carp. ER
1842 Clarkson Street Lt �� t U�
Denver, CO 80218
(303) 830-1188 r i rm I U
Fax: 830-1199 Jar t---
S M d
Denver . Boise
• .Jww.ero resourc es.c o m
ero@eroresources.com June 4. 2002
Ms. Christine Hethcock
Beebe Draw Farms
Residential Development and Equestrian Center
3600 S. Logan Street, Suite 200
Englewood, CO 80110
RE: Final Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Dear Ms. Hethcock:
Per your request, I have reviewed the Resolution of the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners for the Action of Board Concerning Substantial Change of Planned Unit
Development Final Plan for Beebe Draw Farms, Second Hearing-REI, LLC, % Jim
Fell. The Resolution calls for a 22 percent reduction in the overall density of residential
units and a resulting increase in dedicated open space of 60 acres. These and other
proposed changes in the Resolution will not alter any of the environmental
commitments stated in the March 1997 Final Environmental Assessment for the Beebe
Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center that we prepared for the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The proposed changes, which reduce residential units and
increase dedicated open space, will be an overall net environmental benefit for the site.
There is no need to revise the final Environmental Assessment because the proposed
changes stated in the Resolution will not alter the environmental commitments stated in
the Environmental Assessment and will decrease the number of residential units
originally evaluated in the Environmental Assessment.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
4,%c
Steve Dougherty
STD:mIc
cc: Jim Fell
Victor Grizzle, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Jr..:. !any,
Consultants in
Natural Resources
and the Environment
Final Environmental Assessment
Beebe Draw Fanns
Residential Development and
Equestrian Center
Weld County, Colorado
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• Great Plains Region
•
Eastern Colorado Area Office •
) 1056 West County Road 18E
'Loveland, Colorado 80537
•
- March.1997 .. •
„ow , ).
r
United States Department of the Interior
_ _
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
\`"' Eastern Colorado Area Office
11056 West County RD 18E
IN REPLY Loveland, Colorado 80537-9711
REFER TO:
EC-1340
MAR 0 S 1297
Subject: Final Environmental Assessment (EA) - Beebe Draw Farms Residential
Development and Equestrian Center - Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan
District (District) - Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Colorado
Dear Interested Parties:
Enclosed is the Final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
proposed Beebe Draw Farms residential development and equestrian center in
Weld County. Colorado. The EA and FONSI were prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. to address potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed development and to
determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.
A draft EA was prepared in cooperation with several Federal . state• and local
entities and distributed for public review on December 16, 1996. Comments
received were incorporated into the Final EA and used to determine whether a
FONSI was appropriate. Those who submitted comments on the draft EA or those
who did not have an opportunity to comment• may appeal the decision within
five working days of receipt of this letter. Appeals should be submitted in
writing to the Area Manager at the office address listed above.
On behalf of Reclamation. I would like to thank everyone that participated in
the preparation and review of this document. If you have any questions on the
Final EA/FONSI or the appeals process , please contact Vic Grizzle at
(970) 962-4366.
- Sincerely.
. Jac Garner
Area anager
Enclosure
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Reclamation considers the EA to adequately disclose the environmental effects
associated with the proposed action. Reclamation has determined that, with the
implementation of the environmental mitigation commitments, the proposed action will
not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The commitments are
included in Chapter V of the EA and are based on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) Planning Aid Memorandum, endangered species biological opinion, and a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Reclamation, the District, and the REI Limited
Company. Mitigation measures that limit development, as directly administered and
controlled by the District, are outlined and included in the MOA. Additional
measures that limit and/or control use of individual lots would be filed with Weld
County as restrictive covenants of the subdivision. An Environmental Impact
Statement will not be prepared for this project. This finding is based upon
consideration of the following factors:
1. All relevant environmental concerns and significant issues raised by Reclamation
resource specialists, the public, and other agencies were addressed in the EA. The
mitigation commitments prescribed in Chapter V of the EA. the BC consultation/
coordination documents, and the MOA were developed in response to relevant
environmental concerns/issues identified during scoping and agency coordination
meetings. Environmental impacts will be reduced to insignificance through
implementation of these mitigation measures.
2. Future development will be based on mitigation recommendations of the EA, the
project MOA, and covenants filed with Weld County. The project will include approx.
1,700 acres of green-belt buffer zones and an additional 2.285 acres will be leased
from the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) for aesthetic and
recreational purposes. Any additional required permits (ie. , Clean Water Act
Section 401 and 404) would be obtained by the development company prior to any
construction activities.
3. Cultural resources would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. A
cultural resources survey was conducted by Native Cultural Services (NCS) which
covered the entire project area. NCS recorded sixteen cultural properties
containing four historic sites, six historic isolates, and six prehistoric isolates.
The sites and isolates were evaluated as lacking the qualities for National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility and were not considered NRHP eligible. The
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted regarding eligibility
determinations of the subject sites and concurred with Reclamation's recommendation.
The SHPO concurrence letter is contained in Appendix C of Final EA.
10. Boat harbor and boating restrictions will be enforced. Motorized boats greater
than 5 hp will not be permitted on Milton Reservoir. A surface water connection
directly between the harbor and the riparian/backwater zone to the north will not be
allowed. Access from Milton Reservoir to the shore will be prohibited except at the
boat harbor and beach area. Construction of the small boat harbor will minimize
removal of trees and other native vegetation. Fueling concessions or operations
will not be permitted.
11. A State of Colorado National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and
preparation of a stormwater management plan will be required for prevention of non-
point source pollution from construction activities.
12. The development will comply with all local planning and zoning requirements of
the Weld County Planning Department.
Final Environmental Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms
Residential Development and
Equestrian Center
Weld County, Colorado
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Great Plains Region
Eastern Colorado Area Office
11056 West County Road 18E
Loveland, Colorado 80537
March 1997
Contents
I. Introduction 1
IL Purpose and Need for Action 3
M. Alternatives 3
A Proposed Plan—Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center 4
B.No Action Alternative 4
C. Alternative Water Supplies that were Considered and Eliminated 7
IV. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 7
A. Land Use, Ownership and Topography 9
B. Climate, Air Quality and Noise 10
C. Geology and Soils 10
D. Hydrology and Water Quality 11
E. Vegetation 14
F. Wetlands 15
G. Fish and Wildlife 16
H. Threatened and Endangered Species 19
I. Recreation and Aesthetics 26
I Socioeconomics 27
K. Cultural Resources 28
V. Environmental Commitments and Best Management Practices 29
A Vehicles 30
B. Fences 30
C. Animals 30
D.Landscaping 31
E. Wildlife Habitat Buffers and Setbacks 31
F.No Development Area 32
G.Hunting 32
H.Wetlands 32
L Boating and Boat Harbor 32
VL Permitting Requirements 33
VII Consultation and Coordination 34
VIII.Distribution List 34
IX List of Preparers 36
X Citations 37
i
Final Environmental Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and
Equestrian Center
March 1997
I. Introduction
The Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District (District) has been organized as a
political subdivision of the state to provide various public services to a proposed
residential development and equestrian center adjacent to Milton Reservoir. The Project,
known as Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center(Project) is located about 9 miles
south of Greeley in south-central Weld County, Colorado (Figure 1). Project
development is limited by the District's need to secure a source of water for supporting
residential and associated facility needs. This Environmental Assessment addresses
alternative sources of water and the environmental consequences of the proposed
development.
The decision resulting from the evaluation documented in this EA is subject to appeal.
In order to establish"standing" to qualify for an opportunity to appeal a future decision,
each interested party must participate in the decision-making process by providing written
comments during scoping, in response to the draft EA, or during other public involvement
activities. An appeal will be considered valid if the appellant possesses standing and if the
appeal is postmarked or facsimile-generated within 5 working days of final publication of
the public notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Appeals should be addressed to
the Area Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation's Eastern Colorado Area Office.
Page.]
'am., - -- -
a_ fit ° ... ... • .r
_ .: • Greeley 1
. _ l.. —.— — ,f
2
s-.L 1 may,
• r 3 a
t.
as • Iiir •SIs1hM - 7 •r'--' :..i['.
I. l• L, o- I 1 1 • a
M
9 �— 3�_► • � �.
-•- :. .. ` — DI :
F '•
..
•
r - • .. , r'
I
to .'f •. kw:4,, • i s •• :
.. `' • • J .. i' \1
• 4 • ,� ,...
.. .
Beab.,D I Farms , , _— ; • +L •
- --} Equestrian Carrier --: Minton { :1 I{ ., a "j`+:;•.h P al i
•
•
i . .
r , s •
-- FIGURE 1
7•-• , ./ t.----: i tier [
- _- Project Location -
ei1
a+ ! ` -1 ^S..-- •- ( I, -1 is
it,
i �4 .� - -- 1.--4„,...• ` -a = •a. Babe Dnw Farms Residential Development
-L �� a i" ` 11:47:"P.:-. WEquennan Cana
.a�' ' • y' 1 6Z :r Envitomnmtal Assessment
flay r y, I '^ - I- 71,.----....1--+•� VV
-.:1*--
G � 1I ., i 'rte s - �" JJL tip
los•'aws may],
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
IL Purpose and Need for Action
The District is seeking inclusion within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (NCWCD) Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) service area. This will allow
the Central Weld County Water District (CWCWD)to provide water service to Beebe
Draw Farms by intergovernmental agreement. Federal and NCWCD rules require that all
lands receiving water from the C-BT project must be included within NCWCD service
area boundaries.
The Bureau of Reclamation(Reclamation)is required to approve any inclusion of
lands using C-BT water according to the terms of the master repayment contact with
NCWCD. As a result, the proposed Beebe Draw Farms Project is considered a federal
action, which requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Endangered Species Act (ESA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and other federal
laws. The purpose of the proposed action is to have the Beebe Draw Farms property
included within the water service area of the NCWCD so that the Project would be eligible
to receive C-BT water. This water is needed to achieve Project objectives, which include
serving a 800-home residential community. There would be no increase in west slope
diversions of C-BT project water as a result of this action.
III. Alternatives
The Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District investigated several alternatives for
acquiring water supplies for the proposed Project. The feasibility of a suitable water
supply was based on several criteria—
• Availability;
• Dependability of a long-term reliable supply;
• Acceptable water quality;
• Cost;
• Compatibility with the Central Weld County Water District water system. The
CWCWD is the designated water service provider for the District, and CWCWD
requires that sufficient units of C-BT or Windy Gap water be transferred to them to
meet projected demand for the development.
Page 3
Final Enviromnental Assessment
A. Proposed Plan—Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center
The District would secure water for meeting development needs by purchasing shares
of C-BT water. C-BT shares of water would be transferred to the CWCWD, who would
provide treated water to the District by intergovernmental agreement. C-BT water shares
are readily available for purchase and provide a dependable source of high quality water at
a reasonable cost.
The proposed Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center consists of approximately
3,500 acres of land located in southwest Weld County, Colorado, approximately 6 miles
east of Platteville and 9 miles south of Greeley(Figure 1). The District would provide
various public services to a population of about 2,000 permanent residents living in 800
single-family residences covering about 2,000 acres. The proposed development would
offer residents a complete 400-acre Olympic caliber equestrian center, various water
recreational facilities on Milton Reservoir, and about 1,700 acres of greenbelt areas with
over 40 miles of hiking, riding and training trails (Figure 2). The Project would be
completed in three phases over the next 5 to 10 years.
Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center includes approximately 3,500 acres in the
Planned Unit Development area. There are an additional 2,285 acres that are leased from
the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company(FRIC0), bringing the total Project area to
5,755 acres. The leased land contains Milton Reservoir(approximately 800 surface acres
of water) and a buffer perimeter around the reservoir. A small boat harbor would be
developed on the leased land, but no buildings would be constructed.
B. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the District would not be included in the NCWCD
and would not receive water from CWCWD. In the short term, there would be no change
in existing conditions or impacts associated with proposed construction and development.
Future development would not be precluded and the land could be developed for a variety
of uses not requiring federal action.
Page 4
1 school Fire Station IIWeld County Road 38
slh Silo — Q ILEGEND
1 I a
K
0 Low water line
{ — — — ` 3 2 High water line
4 _
5 Wetland areas
Area proposed Outside Ant,
Stable
for development Paddocks % Blocks H
otr O ® Property boundary
Area proposed % Q
for development ! 0 1 Areas proposed for development
Dressa•
: .... .'
j &stadiu ( , Buffer
_ jumping areas''•.
eeicri — Setback
0 ONs��o 0 ` Cormorant and Heron
;-' nesting areas
'••• • a... �' Existing Equestrian Trails
11
Open Space
8 Area proposed 9 10
• for development Clubhouse
Small boat facility
harbor
one mile
'� MILTON
x • - RESERVOIR
1 4, : as .,
FIGURE 2
I x`1 4[4,2'k''
i
Proposed Development and
i
17 16 15 ; ' Environmental Buffers
I = Q
- low and Setbacks
water
I - high 14
I water
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development
and Equestrial Center
PROItERTY Weld County Rood 32 —- Environmental Assessment
• BOUT DARY
o
20 21 I - - - , 23
22 '
A
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center Pik C. Alternative Water Supplies that were Considered and Eliminated
Windy Gap Project—Water from this storage project is located in the Colorado
River basin of the west slope. Currently, water from the Wmdy Gap Project is fully
allocated to several east slope municipalities and water districts and, as a result, is not
available for acquisition.
Ground Water—The reliability of securing water from shallow alluvial wells located
in Beebe Draw Farms property is unknown. To develop these wells would require
approval of an augmentation plan to replace consumptive use depletions. Augmentation
water could be supplied from non-tributary ground water sources, but supplies of non-
tributary ground water may be limited. Use of non-tributary ground water is subject to
withdrawals of 1/100 of the volume each year by state law. The quality of this deep non-
tributary is unknown and may require treatment. Alluvial ground water also has a high
probability of containing excessive dissolved solids, nitrates, and traces of pesticides and
herbicides from irrigated agriculture in the area.
The acquisition of water supplies from the Windy Gap Project or ground water would
not meet the criteria necessary for providing a dependable source of high quality water.
Acquiring water from either of these sources would not be considered a federal action.
IV. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
A summary of environmental consequences from the proposed Project is shown in
Table 1. Detailed discussion for each resource follows this table.
Table 1. Summary of environmental consequences.
Ontal6aMINEMI':+ M,;.: nwonmenietemsegtientxs <,s S x >Fr ;,.
Land UserTopogaphy Land use would change from livestock grazing to a residential community.
Excavation„and grading would result in minor changes to existing
t�b`aphy.
Air Quality/Noise No change in local or regional air quality is expected Noise would increase _
from levels of a Waal agricultural setting to levels consistent with a low
density residential community.
Geology/Soils Coarse textured soils in the Project area are subject to wind erosion if
vegetation is removed. Implementation of an erosion control plan should
Page 7
Final Environmental Asses rnent
Resorrrce '!': S Frwironnuatal Consequences
limit significant soil loss.
Hydrology/Water Quality The use of C-BT water for the Project would not result in additional west
slope diversions. Waste water treatment would be required to meet Weld
County Health Dept requirements to minimize water quality impacts from
septic leach field systems. Buffer and setback zones adjacent to the Platte
Valley Canal and Milton Reservoir would protect shorelines and water
quality.
Vegetation Construction of homes,roads,and other facilities would disturb existing
grassland vegetation Irrigated landscaping would be limited to 5 percent of
each lot Over 60 percent of the area would remain open space with no
change in existing vegetation.
Wetlands No new construction would be permitted within 100 feet of wetlands,with
the exception of the boat harbor. Dredging the boat harbor would affect less
than 0.5 acres of wetlands and less than 5 acres of Waters of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Water birds,herons,cormorants, raptors, deer,and other mammals may be
disturbed by human activities and development Wildlife habitat would be
reduced on the 2,000 acres of residential development In consultation with
the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife,buffer
and setback zones would be established along riparian areas and lake
shorelines to minimiv.adverse effects to wildlife. A peninsula on Milton
Reservoir would be designated a wildlife refuge. Additional environmental
commitments have been established to protect wildlife resources.
Threatened and Bald eagles that seasonally use cottonwood tees along the canal and Milton
Fnetangered Species Reservoir shoreline may be directly disturbed by increased human activities.
Eagle roosting sites would be protected and buffer zone,established to
minim',potential effects to bald eagles. The proposed project also may
affect candidate species—black tern,loggerhead shrike,and Preble's
meadow jumping mouse. There is no know occurrence of these species in
the Project area;however,potential habitat is present The proposed action
is unlikely to adversely affect other T&E species. Environmrntnl
commitments would nninimiZt adverse impacts to known and potentially
occurring threatened and endangered species.
Recreation/Aesthetics Recreation opportunities would increase with development of the equestrian
center,boat harbor,and trail system. Waterfowl hunting would be limited
to the existing lease. The visual character of the property would change
from open range land to low density residential interspersed with protected
open space, grassland,and riparian plant communities
Socioeconomics At buildout,residential development would include 800 single family
homes. Land has been set aside for a school and fire department
Temporary jobs would be created during construction.Property tax revenues
would generate 812 million in annual property tax revenue. Infrastructure
needs would be privately finsnertt
Cultural Resources No significant cultural resources are found on the property. Several historic
sites and isolated historic and prehistoric finds lack the qualities ne cescnry
for eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places.
Page 8
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
914 A. Land Use, Ownership and Topography
Currently, the Beebe Draw Farms property is used for livestock grazing. There also
are a number of gas wells located throughout the property and several central processing
stations. Milton Reservoir, adjacent to the property, and associated canals provide
irrigation storage and delivery to surrounding lands. Milton Reservoir also provides
wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities such as waterfowl hunting. Neighboring
land supports irrigated agriculture, dryland farming, and rangeland.
The property is owned and operated by R.E.I.,Ltd. Liability, Co-N-Wyo Ltd. Liability
Co., dba Investors Ltd.Liability Co. in Colorado. The Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan
District (District)was formed to provide water, roads, recreation facilities, and other
services to the proposed residential development and equestrian center.
The Project is located in the eastern Colorado plains on gently rolling terrain. The
rolling sand hills are accented by depressions but there are few defined drainages. Milton
Reservoir dominates the landscape on the southeast border of the property. Topography
ranges from 4,770 feet on the eastern edge of the property near Milton Reservoir, to
4,960 feet on the west edge at County Road 38. Slopes vary from 0 to 10 percent.
Proposed construction would shift land use from livestock grazing to residential
development. Residences would occupy about 2,000 acres of the 5,755-acre
development. Of this total, 2,285 acres of land would be leased from FRICO, including
Milton Reservoir. Approximately 60 percent of the total area would remain open space.
Livestock grazing would be discontinued. Production of existing gas wells would
continue following development, but new drilling is unlikely.
Excavation, grading, and earth moving would result in minor changes to the existing
topography. Earthwork would be minimized to limit the area of disturbance. Storm
drains, channels, and facility layout are designed to promote drainage. Detailed grading
plans for development have not been finalized, but will be subject to Weld County
development regulations.
Page 9
Final Environmental Assessment
B. Climate,Air Quality and Noise
Climatic conditions in the Beebe Draw Farms Project area is typical of the eastern
plains of Colorado. Summer temperatures average 70 degrees F, with the average daily
maximum temperature of 87 degrees F (Soil Conservation Service 1980). Winter
temperatures average 29 degrees F, with an average daily minimum of 14 degrees F.
Precipitation averages 12.3 inches per year with 75 percent occurring between April and
September.
The Project area is located in rural Weld County, which is an attainment area for all
pollutants. The non-attainment areas for carbon monoxide and ozone are located south
and east of the site (Barrett 1996). There would not be any increase in the frequency or
severity of violations of any air quality standard for non-attainment areas. A short-term
increase in particulate matter from grading and excavation activities during construction is
possible. Implementation of erosion control plans would minimize wind erosion.
Existing noise levels in the Project area are characteristic of a rural agricultural setting.
Natural gas well pumps and service centers contribute to background noise levels as do
nearby county roads. Construction activities such as earth removal, grading, hauling, J
paving and building, will temporarily increase noise levels on the property. Residential
development and associated traffic would increase noise levels above existing levels at the
Project site. Noise levels also would increase along major arterial roads to the
development. Long-term noise levels in the vicinity of the development are likely to be
similar to other low density suburban residential communities.
C. Geology and Soils
The development area is located within the Colorado Piedmont Section of the Great
plains Province (Empire Laboratories 1985). The Colorado Piedmont is a broad erosional
trench that separates the Rocky Mountains from the Sigh Plains. The underlying
topography consists primarily of eolian(windblown) deposits. Alluvial(water deposited)
sands and gravels are found along Beebe Draw. Bedrock from the Laramie formation is
found at depths greater than 50 feet. There are no known active faults in the area,
although slight seismic activity may be possible (Empire Laboratories 1985).
1111
Page 10
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Soils in the Project area are dominated by windblown, sandy textured material (Soil
Conservation Service 1980). The Valent soil series is the most common soil on the
property. Valent series soils are deep, excessively drained, sandy soils found on slopes up
to 9 percent. These soils have slow runoff; rapid permeability, and low water erosion
hazard. They are, however, extremely erodible as a result of blowing. The Vona soil
series also is common in the Project area. Vona soils have a loamy sand surface texture
with subsoils of fine sandy loam and sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid and
soils are deep and excessively drained. These soils are very highly erodible from wind
erosion. The Bancard soil series is found in a narrow band along the Platte Valley canal.
This sandy loam textured soil is formed in stratified alluvium and is deep and excessively
drained. Permeability is moderately rapid and the erosion hazard is low. Hydric soils have
developed in wetland areas where the water table is at or near the surface for portions of
the year.
Erodible surface soils in the Project area are susceptible to wind erosion if vegetation
( is removed. Accelerated wind erosion is possible during land clearing, excavation, and
grading operations. The implementation of best management practices(BMPs)for
erosion control will minimize soil loss. Primary measures used to control wind erosion
would include—
. Phasing construction to minimize the area of disturbance at any given time.
. Minimizing disturbance to existing vegetation.
• Revegetating disturbed sites as quickly as possible.
A detailed stormwater management plan would be developed to address potential
erosion as required by NPDES stormwater permitting (Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment 1994). Implementation of an effective erosion control plan
should limit any significant soil loss from the Project site and minimize water quality
degradation.
r--
D. Hydrology and Water Quality
Milton Reservoir is the dominant water feature adjacent to the proposed Project.
Constructed in 1910 by FRICO,Milton Reservoir is used for irrigation storage. The
D.... ),
Final Environmental Assessment
approximate 800-acre reservoir varies considerably in size due to changing wafer levels
and low topographic relief. The reservoir is filled from the Beebe Seep Canal and Platte
Valley Canal, which divert flow from the South Platte River. Controlled outlets below the
darn feed Evans No. 2 Ditch and the Gilmore Ditch. There are several small depressions
downgradient of the reservoir where the water table is high that contain surface water.
The Project area does not include any perennial streams or well defined drainages. A
small ephemeral channel is located in the northwest corner of the property. Highly
permeable soils prevent excessive surface runoff
Ground water levels adjacent to the reservoir are seasonally high. Depression areas
that support wetland vegetation also have a high water table. Five windmills on the
property indicate previous ground water pumping. Seepage from irrigation ditches and
Milton Reservoir support high ground water levels in some locations.
Water quality data (EarthInfo 1993) from a single sample date in September 1972
indicates high salinity in Milton Reservoir. Specific conductance of 1120 mmhos/cm and a
pH value of 9.5 is indicative of high concentrations of soluble salts such as sodium,
calcium, magnesium, and potassium. Accumulations of salts can result from contributions J
of subsurface marine deposited parent material. Evaporation also could serve to
concentrate salts in the large shallow reservoir. Runoff from nearby irrigated agricultural
lands is likely to contribute nitrogen, phosphorous, and pesticides to irrigation ditches
feeding the reservoir. It is not known if high salinity levels are still present at the
reservoir. Existing gas wells show no evidence of leakage from holding tanks (Risk
Management Services 1994). Incidental small spills of hazardous material since 1977 are
not believed to have had a significant environmental impact on the property.
Under the proposed alternative, the District would acquire the raw water necessary to
support residential development from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
The Central Weld County Water District is interconnected with the NCWCD system and
would treat and deliver potable water to the proposed development. The CWCWD will
manage, operate, and maintain the water system serving the District in accordance with an
Ia
Page 12
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Agreement for Water Service (Central Weld County Water District 1995). The District
will not be directly connected to the NCWCD water transmission system. Water demand
at buildout is estimated at 640 acre-feet per year(W.W. Wheeler and Assoc. 1996).
Domestic waste water would be treated using conventional septic tank/leach field facilities
subject to Weld County Health Department regulations. Consumptive use from residential
water use and lawn irrigation is expected to be about 300 acre-feet per year.
Irrigated landscaping would be limited to less than 5 percent of residential lots to
conserve water use. Native vegetation adapted to natural precipitation would be
maintained on other portions of residential lots and in undeveloped and common use areas.
The increase in impervious surface area from construction of roads, driveways, homes,
and other structures would increase the amount of surface runoff from the property.
Highly permeable soils and implementation of drainage control structures should limit
generation of substantial amounts of stormwater runoff. Stormwater discharges into
Milton Reservoir from the development would not be permitted.
Construction of the proposed development may introduce water quality contaminants
from several sources. Residential homes typically introduce substances such as fertilizers,
pesticides, and household chemicals to the environment. Residential lots, which also may
include one horse per acre, may introduce nutrients, chemicals, organics, and bacteria into
surface runoff or ground water. Septic tank leach field systems may introduce nutrients or
bacteria into the ground water.
A number of measures would be used to minimize potential water contaminants from
the above sources. Areas where percolation rates are too rapid for leach field construction
would be amended with finer textured material to reduce percolation rates to acceptable
rates. Leach field construction and percolation rates would be in accordance with Weld
County Heath Department regulations. Horse manure would be hauled offsite or
incorporated into the soil for landscaping and gardens. Covenants would control the
handling of animal waste as well as other household waste to prevent water quality
contamination
Page 13
Final Environmental Assessment
A buffer zone would be implemented for development near the reservoir shoreline.
Buffer and setback zones also will be established around the boat harbor and canals to
protect shorelines and water quality. Harbor dredging may temporarily stir up sediments
in the lake, but there would be no long-term effect. Dredging would be subject to
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredged material would be used in
access road construction. There would be no surface water connection directly between
the harbor and the riparian/backwater corridor, which will minimize water quality
degradation of the corridor. There would be no fueling concessions at the lake or harbor,
which will minimize water quality degradation from inadvertent oil and gas spills.
E. Vegetation
The majority of the site is comprised of rolling sand hills prairie. Common vegetation
on the site includes prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis
hymenoides), sand bluestem (Andropogon halleii), sand sage (Artemesia filifolia), prickly
pear (Opuntia spp.), yucca(Yucca glauca), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), needlegrass
(Stipa viridula), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), tanty mustard (Descurainia
pinnata), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), sand dropseed (Sporobolus J
cryptandrus), six weeks fescue (Festuca orvina) and annual sunflower(Heleanthus
annuus). Much of the area has been degraded by a history of overgrazing.
Small isolated portions of the sand hills prairie within the Project area have been
converted to areas of domesticated non-native grasses such as crested wheatgrass and
smooth brome. Some of these areas appear to have been historically irrigated.
Construction of roads, homes, and other facilities would require removal of existing
vegetation from portions of the proposed development. Vegetation disturbance, as with
development, would occur in phases. Because much of the existing rangeland has been
degraded from livestock grazing, it may be possible to improve grassland condition in
open space and common land use areas. Irrigated landscaping would be limited to no
more than 5 percent of the lot adjacent to each house. The remaining lot and common
areas will be maintained in vegetation native to the area or existing vegetation. In
addition, 15 trees would be planted on each lot. Additional details on vegetation
Page 14
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
management are included in Section V:Environmental Commitments and Best
Management Practices.
F. Wetlands
Approximately 34 acres of wetlands occur within the Beebe Draw Farms Project area,
and another 42 acres of wetlands occur adjacent to the Project area where the Platte
Valley Canal flows into Milton Reservoir(Figure 2). Most of the Project area is dry due
to the well drained sandy soils. However, depressions within the sand hills landscape near
the reservoir support wetlands and small bodies of open water due to the elevated water
table and seepage associated with Milton Reservoir to the south. Wetland areas also are
found around Milton Reservoir and along the Platte Valley Canal, which feeds the
reservoir.
Typical wetland communities within the sandhill depressions include cattail marsh
dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia) and a transitional wetland community
�-. comprised of common threesquare (Scirpus americanus), spikerush(Eleocharis
pauc fora), foxtail barley(Hordeum jubaturn),Nebraska sedge(Carex nebrascensis) and
alkali muhly (Muhlenbergia asperfolia). These wetlands are typically inhabited by a
variety of waterfowl and red-winged blackbirds, and many of the wetland areas support
populations of Woodhouse's toads. Larger wetland areas with open waterbodies provide
habitat for a greater diversity of waterfowl and shorebirds including great blue herons and
white pelicans. The backwater area of Milton Reservoir, where it meets the inflows from
the Platte Valley Canal, form a swamp wetland complex dominated by plains cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), peachleaf willow(Salix amygdaloides)and knotweed (Polygonum
coccinea). This wetland complex is not within the boundary of Beebe Draw Farms, but
the Project area borders both sides of the Platte Valley Canal (Figure 2).
Disturbance to wetland areas is expected to be minimal. No new construction would
be permitted in wetlands or within 100 feet of wetlands. Exceptions would include minor
impacts at the boat harbor and a road crossing of the Platte Valley Canal. Several
cottonwood trees would be removed during dredging of the boat harbor. Total wetland
impacts are estimated to be less than 0.5 acres; dredging would affect less than 5 acres of
Pape 15
Final Environmental Assessment
waters of the U.S. Existing horse trails that cross wetlands would remain. Maintenance
and upgrades to these trails would not degrade wetlands. Any future filling or excavation
activities in wetlands would require authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
G. Fish and Wildlife
The Beebe Draw Farms Project area and adjacent lands provide a diversity of habitat
for wildlife. There are four major wildlife habitat types on the site—
. Open water of Milton Reservoir;
• Riparian woodlands;
• Riparian and emergent wetlands;
• Upland sandhill prairie.
Milton Reservoir
Milton Reservoir provides high quality waterfowl habitat. Large numbers of Canada
geese, as well as mallards, northern shovlers, and common mergansers have been observed
at the reservoir. The large reservoir likely attracts several waterfowl species with an
affinity for expanses of open water such as redheads, scaup, ring-necked ducks,
goldeneye, and white pelicans. The long shoreline, shallow water areas, and protected J
coves provide abundant habitat for surface feeding ducks like mallard, gadwell, teal,
widgeon, and pintail. Shorebirds likely to visit the site include coots, grebes, herons,
egrets, and avocets. Many birds likely are spring and fall migrants, but year-round habitat
also is provided by the reservoir.
Direct development in Milton Reservoir would be limited to dredging a small boat
harbor on the northeast shore (Figure 2). The harbor would provide access to the lake for
non-motorized boats and motorized boats with 5 hp or less. Direct habitat loss on the
lake and shoreline would be minimal. Recreational use of the reservoir may disturb and
displace waterfowl at some locations during part of the year. Shorebirds are unlikely to be
affected by recreational activity since access to the reservoir shoreline would be restricted
to the boat harbor and designated beach areas. Boat access to the Milton Reservoir
shoreline also would be prohibited, except for the boat harbor. These actions are expected
to minimize adverse impact to shorebirds.
Page 16
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
the Project area and potential habitat exists within the Project area. There is no known
occurrence of Preble's meadow jumping mouse in the Project area; however, potential
habitat exists. The proposed action is unlikely to adversely affect other threatened,
endangered, and candidate species. (See the Biological Assessment, Appendix D for
additional discussion of each species.)
Bald Eagles
In Colorado, wintering bald eagles typically arrive in October and leave in March and
are normally found near reservoirs and major rivers where fish, waterfowl, or terrestrial
prey are available. Wintering bald eagles prefer to roost in large cottonwood trees, and
are commonly seen at Milton Reservoir in cottonwood trees along the shoreline. It is not
known whether communal roosting or nesting occurs in the vicinity of the Project area.
The proposed Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center development may directly
affect wintering populations of bald eagles through increased human activities around
Milton Reservoir. To minimize the effects of the potential development on bald eagles
Ord
and other wildlife near Milton Reservoir and the Platte Valley Canal, the Beebe Draw
Farms Metropolitan District has agreed to several environmental commitments. In
general, these agreements include:
• No development of and restricted access to the high quality habitat around the
peninsula in Section 15.
• Creation of a combined 150 to 300 foot buffer and setback zone between proposed
developed areas and Milton Reservoir and Platte Valley Canal:
• Restrictions on the use of off-road motorized vehicles.
• Controls for pets and horses.
See Section V:Environmental Commitments and Best Management Practices and
Appendbc A,Memorandum of Agreement Between the District and Reclamation for
additional detail.
These environmental commitments should lessen the impacts of the development on
bald eagles and other wildlife species that use Milton Reservoir,the Platte River Canal,
and the adjacent shorelines. However, increased human activities may still disturb bald
eagles because of recreational activities around the reservoir.
n- 79
Final Environmental Assessment
Me Ladies-tresses Orchid
This orchid grows in seasonally moist soils near perennial streams and nearby flood
plains, lakes, and springs. There is no known populations of the orchid in the vicinity of
the proposed development. There are no natural perennial drainages in the Project area,
and isolated wetlands provide the only potential habitat. A field survey for the orchid did
not reveal any populations within the Project area. Areas of potential habitat are within
protected buffer zones that would not be disturbed. the ladies'-tresses orchid is unlikely
to be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Whooping Crane
Whooping cranes from the original wild population that migrates between Alberta and
the Texas coast were very rarely observed in Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992).
Establishment of a transplanted flock in the 1970s has resulted in a few sightings along the
South Platte River in Weld County. There are no known observations of whooping cranes
in the vicinity of Milton Reservoir. An accidental whooping crane migrant could
potentially stopover at the reservoir. Potential shoreline habitat for the whooping crane in
the Project area is protected from development and access is restricted. No adverse v"
effects to whooping cranes are expected from the proposed project.
Least Tern
Least terns are casual to very rare fall and spring migrants in northeast Colorado
(Andrews and Righter 1992). Summer non-breeding visitors are recorded along the South
Platte River. The only recorded nesting of least terns in northeast Colorado was in
Washington County. There are no known observations of the least tern at Milton
Reservoir. Sandy exposed shoreline at the reservoir during low water levels does provide
habitat for least terns. Potential shoreline habitat in the Project area would be protected
by buffer and setback zones, and direct disturbance is limited to the marina area.
Environmental commitments also restrict shoreline use and prevent access by ATVs and
pets. No adverse effects to least terns that may occasionally visit Milton Reservoir are
expected from the proposed project.
IMO
Page 22
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Piping Plover
Piping plovers prefer large sandy beaches or mudflat areas similar to the habitat
preference of least tents. In Colorado, piping plovers are very rare spring and fall
migrants in the eastern plains (Andrews and Righter 1992). There are no known
observations of piping plovers in the Project area. As discussed for least tents, protection
of shoreline habitat should prevent any adverse effects to future use of Milton Reservoir
by piping plovers.
Candidate Species for Listing
White-faced Ibis—This shorebird is found in wet meadows, along marsh edges, and
along reservoir shorelines. The white-faced ibis migrates through the South Platte and
other river valleys in the spring. Rarely do they breed in Weld County (Andrews and
Righter 1992). White-faced ibis have been observed in wetlands south of Milton
Reservoir, but not within the Project area.
Potential habitat for the ibis exists in the marshy area along the Platte Valley Canal.
Environmental commitments agreed to by the District would provide buffer zones to
protect areas of potential white-faced ibis habitat. No adverse effects to white-faced ibis
are expected from the proposed development.
Mountain Plover—Mountain plovers prefer level short grass prairies. Historically
they were a fairly common resident to the eastern plains. Recently, northern Weld County
provides habitat for the majority of mountain plovers in Colorado (Andrews and Righter
1992). There are no known observations of the mountain plover in the vicinity of Beebe
Draw Farms. Dominant vegetation in the Project area includes tall grass prairie and sand
sage, which is not the preferred habitat for mountain plovers. No adverse effects to
mountain plovers are expected from the proposed project.
Black Tern—Black tents prefer marsh areas with abundant emergent vegetation.
The bird migrates through Colorado especially in the spring, but breeding occurs rarely
(Andrews and Righter 1992). Black tents have been observed in wetlands south of Milton
Reservoir, but not within the proposed development. Potential habitat for black terns in
O 99
Final Environmental Assessment
the Project area includes the Platte Valley Canal, Milton Reservoir, and isolated sandhill
depressions. These areas would be protected from development by environmental
commitments to establish buffer zones and restrict access. Human activities and
disturbance associated with the proposed development may affect black tern use of
suitable habitats in the Project area.
Ferruginous Hawk—Ferruginous hawks are fairly common winter residents in the
eastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). There are no known
observations of these hawks in the vicinity of the proposed project. They may
occasionally hunt small mammals in the Project area, but the site does not support prairie
dogs, an important prey for ferruginous hawks. The proposed project is not expected to
adversely affect ferruginous hawks due to a lack of existing use in the area and a limited
prey base.
Western Snowy Plover—Western snowy plover is an uncommon spring and fall
migrant along the South Platte drainage. There is no recorded breeding in northeast
Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). These plovers occupy mudflats and sandy
shorelines with a preference for alkali flats for breeding. There are no known observations
of the western snowy plover near Milton Reservoir.
Potential plover habitat in the Beebe Draw Farms area, except the marina area,would
be protected by buffer zones and access restrictions. As a result, no adverse effect to
western snowy plover is likely from the proposed project.
Loggerhead Shrike—This species is a fairly common spring and fall migrant in the
eastern Colorado plains (Andrews and Righter 1992). Loggerhead shrikes are found in a
variety of habitats including riparian areas, agricultural land, grassland, shrubland, and
isolated trees and shrubs. Loggerhead shrikes have been observed west of Milton
Reservoir. The Project area, particularly in the vicinity of the Platte River Canal, may
provide potential nesting habitat for this species, but this area, with the exception of a road
crossing, would be protected from development. The loss of grassland habitat and
increased human activity may affect loggerhead shrike use in the Project area.
110
Page 24
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Baird's Sparrow—Baird's sparrow has been reported only infrequently as a migrant
on the eastern plains (Andrews and Righter 1992). It most likely is found in native
grasslands. There are no known observations of Baird's sparrow near the proposed
development and there is a lack of recent breeding records in northeast Colorado. The
proposed development includes areas of native grassland and introduced grasses that
currently are used for livestock grazing. Construction of homes and related facilities
would disturb areas of native grassland, but over 60 percent of the area would remain
open space with no change in existing vegetation. Potential habitat for Baird's span-ow
would remain within the Project area and, hence, the proposed project is unlikely to
adversely affect this species.
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse—This species prefers wet meadows and riparian
corridors along the Front Range of Colorado often within the flood plains of the South
Platte River. There are no known observations of the mouse near the proposed Beebe
Draw Farms development. The most suitable potential habitat for the mouse is located
along the Platte Valley Canal. This habitat will not be directly affected by proposed
NIS
development because these areas are included within protected buffer zones. Human
disturbance and domestic pets may affect mouse populations.
Fringed-tailed Myotis—This bat has only occasionally been recorded in Colorado
(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). It typically is found in coniferous woodlands and shrublands at
elevations of about 7,500 feet. The proposed Project area does not contain the bats'
preferred coniferous woodland and shrubland habitat and is well below the normal
elevation for this species. No adverse affect to fringed-tailed myotis is likely from the
proposed project.
Swift Fax—The swift fox is found in short grass and mid grass prairies of the Great
Plains. In northeast Colorado, the fox prefers relatively flat plains where soils are not too
sandy. No swift foxes have been observed near the proposed Beebe Draw Farms
development. The proposed Project area includes small areas of shortgrass prairie suitable
for swift fox, but these areas are relatively small and soils are very sandy. It unlikely the
proposed project would adversely affect swift fox due to the lack of suitable habitat.
Page 25
Final Environmental Assessment
--Regal Fritillary Butterfly—This butterfly is found in wet meadows and remnant
tallgrass prairies in eastern Colorado. No populations have been recorded along the Front
Range for 20 years, although a population does exist in northeast Colorado near the
Nebraska border(Opler 1995).
There is no know observation of the butterfly being found in the proposed Project
area. Only small isolated areas of wet meadow habitat exist at the project site and these
would not be disturbed. As a result, no adverse effect is lately to occur from the proposed
development.
Colorado Butterfly Weed—This species prefers moist meadows in the transition
zone between wet stream bottoms and flood plain areas. It has not been found recently in
Colorado (CONPS 1989;McKee 1996). Limited potential habitat for the butterfly weed
exists in the transition zone between the prairie and wetlands along the Platte Valley
Canal. This area would be included in a buffer zone protected from development. This
species was not observed during a field survey of wetland habitats in the Project area. No
adverse effects to Colorado butterfly weed are likely from the proposed project.
Showy Prairie Gentian —This species grows along streams, in wet meadows, or
along margins of lakes and ponds often in alkaline soil. It has been recorded near, but not
on the proposed development site (CNHP 1996). It was not observed during
environmental surveys of potential habitat in the Project area. Potential habitat on the
project site includes alkaline depressions that would be protected within buffer zones. As
a result, showy prairie gentian is unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed project.
L Recreation and Aesthetics
Currently, there are no active recreation uses of the Beebe Draw Farms property. The
District administers a hunting lease on property on the southwest caner of Milton
Reservoir to the Aristocrat Duck Club. Waterfowl hunting is for club members only and
occurs seasonally on these lands. Wind surfing and small boating are allowed by license.
Fishing is permitted by license. There is no public access to the Reservoir.
I'
Page 26
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
The Project area is located on rolling hills and dunes formed from the deposition of
windblown material. Contrasting with the grassland plant communities are scattered
wetland depressions that support cattail marshes. Milton Reservoir contains a mixture of
terrain including open water, cottonwood woodlands, riparian shorelines, and backwater
forested swamp areas.
Recreation opportunities would increase with the proposed development. The
equestrian center would provide outdoor riding arenas, cross country jumping courses,
stables, and other facilities. There also would be a network of over 40 miles of trails for
horse riding and walking. Development of a small harbor would provide boat access for
fishing, boating, and other water-based recreation on Milton Reservoir. No water skiing
or jet skis would be allowed.
Visual characteristics of the property would change with development. The open
range and rural setting would shift to a low density rural residential community. Open
space areas would be maintained, and riparian and wetland plant communities near the
lake would be preserved.
.1. Socioeconomics
Currently the Project site is undeveloped. An occasional rural farm home occupies the
surrounding lands, but there are no concentrations of residents. Platteville is the closest
community located about 6 miles west along highway 85. Greeley is the closest large city
and is about 9 miles north of Beebe Draw Farms. Weld County Roads 32 and 38 provide
access to the property from the west and County Road 39 is the principle access route
from the north.
The proposed development at full buildout would include 800 single family homes and
support a population of about 2,000 residents. Residents likely would commute to jobs in
Greeley,Loveland, Longmont, and the Denver metro area. The area currently lacks
services to support a population of this size. Commercial developments such as gas
stations, convenience stores, and other service facilities may develop on adjacent lands as
the population increases; however, no commercial developments are planned within
Project boundaries.
•
Page 27
Final Environmental Assessment
During construction,jobs would be created for contractors and construction workers.
Long-term employment opportunities would be limited to service providers, equestrian
center employees, real estate salespersons, and maintenance workers. Offsite development
of commercial business property or industrial sites, which would provide additional
employment opportunities, are not planned. Business and residential growth along the
Front Range may expand near the proposed Project over the long term.
Government services would be needed for construction permitting and inspections
during the initial phases of development. Expansion of government services for schools,
fire protection, and road maintenance also may be necessary. Land has been reserved for
a volunteer fire department and school on the northeast side of the property. Beebe Draw
would pay the county or other agencies for services including roads, law enforcement and
fire protection. Electricity, phone service, and solid waste disposal will be provided by
private companies. Additionally, Beebe Draw would contribute funds to the county for
paving and maintenance of roads outside and leading to the development.
Projected property value at full buildout is estimated to generate 512 million in annual
property tax revenues, which is substantially above current property tax of about $2,000. `.rd
The Project would contribute significant new tax revenue that may offset service costs.
All infrastructure needed for the development would be privately financed.
K. Cultural Resources
Prehistoric use of the area may have included hunting of plains animals such as bison,
deer, or antelope. The absence of water would have constrained the availability of floral
and faunal resources, which would have constrained prehistoric utilization of the area.
Historical use of the lands may have included cattle grazing, with the possibility of
some residential habitation. Grazing was originally dependent on water from windmill-
pumped wells. Later irrigation systems such as the reservoir, canal, and ditch were
utilized. The reservoir also provides recreational opportunities such as waterfowl hunting.
Recently the land has been used for seasonal grazing of cattle, and has been extensively
tapped for natural gas and oil production.
Page 28
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
An intensive cultural resource inventory of Beebe Draw Farms was conducted in
January and February 1996 (Native Cultural Services 1996). In addition, information
from previous cultural resource investigations (Tate 1985; Gerstle and Mehls 1995) was
used in evaluating the property.
These surveys recorded 16 cultural resource sites including four historic sites, six
historic isolated finds, and six prehistoric isolated finds. Field evaluation of the historic
sites indicate they lack the qualities necessary for National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) eligibility. Isolated finds are not eligible to the NRHP. Historic sites included
remnants of historic habitation complexes, the Evans Ditch No. 2,Platte Valley Canal, and
Milton Reservoir. Isolated historic finds included windmills, a wagon, and scattered
artifacts. Prehistoric isolated finds included chipped stone artifacts such as projectile
points, a lithic core, and flakes.
Development of Beebe Draw Farms would not impact any significant cultural
resources. Section 106 of the National Historic Places Act requires consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Reclamation and SHPO archaeologists agreed
that there are no sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Appendix C).
If significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of excavation and grading
of the property, a qualified archeologist would be contacted to evaluate the site.
V. Environmental Commitments and Best Management Practices
The Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District has agreed to the following
environmental commitments that will help to minimize adverse environmental effects
associated with the proposed Project. These environmental commitments were developed
in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and
the Bureau of Reclamation. -These commitments also are addressed in covenants that have
been filed with Weld County, a Planning Aid Memorandum (Appendix B) and a
Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix A) signed by the District,REI Limited Liability
Company and Reclamation. The PAM includes environmental measures that have been
agreed to by the agencies and the District and that would be implemented as part of the
planned development. These measures also are included in the MOA. The PAM also
Page 29
Final Environmental Assessment
includes other recommendations that are more appropriate for the development as it
matures. These additional recommendations will be considered in the future by the r`
homeowners' association.
Those restrictions that limit the use of individual lots generally will be filed with the
County as restrictive covenants running with the land or plat restrictions limiting the use of
the land. All other restrictions that limit the use of the riparian corridor, wetlands and
open space areas owned or controlled by the District(over which lot owners have no
authority) are set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement. An intergovernmental
agreement is a more appropriate format for these environmental protections because the
District, unlike the development company and individual property owners, has continuing
existence as a political subdivision of the state and will be available over the years to
enforce the contractual terms and cooperate with the federal and state agencies.
A. Vehicles
No motorized vehicles (other than maintenance vehicles) will be allowed off roads or
driveways. This.specifically includes motor bikes, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and all
recreation off-road vehicles. `" /
B. Fences
Perimeter fencing of homesites or lots will be limited to a maximum of 5 percent of the
total lot area adjacent to or around the main dwelling and parking areas. Up to an
additional 5 percent of the lot area may be fenced for a corral or paddock. Horses on the
property must be kept in a fenced area.
C. Animals
Dogs and cats must be kept under the owner's control at all times. The number of
horses and domestic pets shall be in accordance with Weld County regulations.
Grazing of homesites, trails or greenbelts will not be permitted. Only one horse per
acre or fraction shall be kept on any lot. Any animals kept on the lot must be in the corral
or paddock area unless being ridden.
4
Page 30
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development mid Equestrian Center
Ned
D. Landscaping
Within six months of the completion of the main dwelling, a minimum of 15 trees shall
be planted on the lot (ten evergreen, of which five are at least 5 feet in height; and five
deciduous, of which two are at least 10 feet in height). Irrigated landscaping will be
limited to an area no greater than 5 percent of the lot adjacent to the house. The
remaining lot area and common areas will be maintained in vegetation native to the area or
that occurred onsite prior to development. Removal of rock, topsoil, plant material or
similar items from common areas will not be permitted.
E. Wildlife Habitat Buffers and Setbacks
The agencies have identified several important wildlife habitats near or adjacent to the
proposed development. Buffers and setbacks, which have been developed in consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife, will be
established adjacent to these important habitats in order to minimize adverse effects to
wildlife. The District has agreed to establish the following buffers and setbacks to
minimize adverse effects to wildlife (Figure 2).
1. All areas called out as"buffers"will be maintained in natural vegetation(i.e.,
vegetation that is currently common to the site).
2. Buffer and Setback Zone A—For lots along the reservoir, from about the
southern tip of the peninsula at the boat harbor and extending south, there will be a
100-foot wide buffer from the property line (lake shore)and a 100-foot wide
setback to any structural improvements. This effectively forms a 200-foot wide
area between the lake shoreline and structural improvements.
3. Buffer and Setback Zone B—From the northern boundary in No. 2 to the Beebe
Draw Farms Parkway Bridge across the Platte Valley Canal (near the northeast
corner of Section 9), the following will be established on the west side of the canal
and riparian area: 200-foot wide buffer and a 100-foot wide setback for all
structural improvements. This effectively forms a 300-foot wide area between the
edge of the riparian area and any structural improvements.
4. Buffer and Setback Zone G—From the small boat harbor area north to the Beebe
Draw Farms Parkway across the Canal, the following will be established on the
east side of the canal: 200-foot wide buffer and a 100-foot wide setback for all
structural improvements. This effectively forms a 300-foot wide area between the
edge of the riparian area and any structural improvements.
5. Buffer and Setback Zones C and F—From the Beebe Draw Farms Parkway,
north to where the Canal narrows (about 1,800 feet north of the crossing), the
Page 31
Final Environmental Assessment
following will be established: a 100-foot wide buffer from the property line and a
100-foot wide setback for all structural improvements. This effectively forms a
200-foot wide area between the canal and any structural improvements on both
sides of the canal.
6. Buffer and Setback Zones D and E—From where the canal narrows (about 1,800
feet north of the Beebe Draw Farms Parkway crossing)to the northern Project
boundary on the east side of the property line (Weld County Road 38 on the west
side_of the property line), the following will be established: a 50-foot wide buffer
from the property line and a 100-foot wide setback for any structural
improvements. This effectively forms a 150-foot wide area between the canal and
any structural improvements on both sides of the canal.
F. No Development Area
No development associated with Beebe Draw Farms or the District will occur in
Section 15. The peninsula in Section 15 will be designated a wildlife refuge with signage
indicating its status and access restrictions.
G. Hunting
No hunting will be permitted within the development, except as provided by the lease
for waterfowl hunting on Milton Reservoir.
H. Wetlands
No new construction will be permitted in wetlands or any area within 100 feet of
wetlands. Maintenance of existing facilities in wetlands or within 100 feet of wetlands will
be allowed.
L Boating and Boat Harbor
1. Motorized boats greater than 5 hp will not be permitted on Milton Reservoir.
2. There will be no surface water connection directly between the harbor and the
riparian/backwater zone to the north.
3. Fueling concessions or operations will not be permitted on the reservoir.
4. Development associated with the small boat harbor will be limited to the
immediate harbor shoreline.
5. Construction of the small boat harbor and its inlet will minimize removal of trees
and other native vegetation.
6. Access from Milton Reservoir to the shore, and from the shore to the Reservoir,
will be prohibited except at the boat harbor and beach area.
Page 32
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
VI. Permitting Requirements
Inclusion of Beebe Draw Farms into the NCWCD boundaries and subsequent use of
C-BT project water requires approval by Reclamation. Approval of the proposed Project
is a federal action and must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Endangered Species Act, and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Preparation of this
Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment (Appendix C) meets NEPA
documentation requirements. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) indicates no
significant adverse environmental effects were identified and preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material in waters of the
United States including wetlands. Dredging of the small boat harbor at the northeast end
of Milton Reservoir(Figure 2) could require authorization by the COE depending on how
the dredging activities were conducted. Crossings of the Platte Valley Canal may require
authorization from the COE for associated filling activities in waters or wetlands. The
COE has indicated that dredging activities in excess of 3 acres may require an individual
Section 404 permit. The COE regulations concerning excavation are currently under
review and may change in the near future. Any dredging for construction of the small boat
harbor will comply with all federal, state and local regulations in force at the time of
dredging. No other proposed development would affect wetlands or Waters of the U.S.
State of Colorado permitting requirements include a Stormwater National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit (Colorado Water Quality Control Act 25-8-101 et
seq. CRS) for prevention of non-point source pollution from construction activities over 5
acres. Preparation of a stormwater management plan would be required for this Project.
A 401 Certification from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
would be required for dredging of the boat harbor if an individual Section 404 permit is
required for the Project. This permit certifies that proposed activities would not cause or
contribute to a violation of state surface water quality standards. The State Historic
Preservation Office has provided Cultural Resource Clearance (National Historic
Preservation Act) that no significant cultural resources would be affected.
P1700 x x
Final Environmental Assessment
Weld County would require Beebe Draw to complete a Planned Unit Development or
Major Subdivision application process, which includes rezoning. No other county permits
would be required from the Weld County Health Department for individual waste disposal
systems for each lot.
VII. Consultation and Coordination
In accordance with CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA,Reclamation as lead
agency can request assistance from other agencies in preparing the EA. Reclamation
invited federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise on pertinent
environmental issues as well as affected state and local agencies and entities to participate
as cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies include—
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Colorado Division of Wildlife;
• Colorado State Historic Preservation Office; and
• Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
An agency sopping meeting was held on December 12, 1995 to discuss key issues and J
environmental concerns for the proposed development. At the request of Reclamation,
the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife prepared a Planning
Aid Memorandum to provide guidance in minimizing effects to wildlife (Appendix B).
This information was used by the District to modify development plans and determine
environmental commitments and best management practices (see Section V).
Page 34
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
t^J VIIL Distribution List
Ms. Kari Doerr Suite 500, 999 - 18th Street
Colorado Division of Wildlife Denver, CO 80202
317 West Prospect Berthoud Public Library
Fort Collins, CO 80526 328 Massachusetts Avenue
Mr. Ken Salazar, Director Berthoud, CO 80513
Cob. Dept. Of Natural Resources Mr. Paul Cockre1
1313 Sherman Street,Room 710 390 Union Blvd., Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203 Denver, CO 80228-1556
Mr. Terry McKee Boulder Public Library
Environmental Resource Spec. Drawer H
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Boulder, CO 80306
9307 State Highway 121
Littleton, CO 80123-6901 Mr. Albert Saek
Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Co.
Mr. James E. Hartmann
80 S. 27th Ave.
State Historic Preservation Officer
Colorado Historical Society Brighton CO 80601
1300 Broadway Longmont Public Library
Denver, CO 80203 2255 North Main
Mr.Lee Carlson, State Supv. Longmont CO 80501
Colorado Field Office Fort Collins Public Library
U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service 201 Peterson Street
P.O.Box 25486 DFC Fort Collins, CO 80524
Denver, CO 80225-0207 • Dr. Ron Ryder
Mr.Bob Stewart, REO Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Ofc. of Environmental Affairs Colorado State University
D-108, P.O. Box 25007 Fort Collins, CO 80523
Denver, DO 80225
Loveland Public Library
Greeley Public Library 300 North Adams Avenue
Centennial Park Branch Loveland, CO 80537
2227-23rd Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631 Mr. Jerry Westbrook
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
Sierra Club Southwest Office District
2017 Tenth St., Suite B P.O. Box 679
Boulder, CO 80302 Loveland, CO 80539-0679
Mr. Jack McGraw, Acting Administrator Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika
Environmental Protection Agency Weld County Planning Dept.
Region VIII 1440 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Page 35
Final Environmental Assessment
Environmental Defense Fund National Audubon Society
do Dan Luecke 4150 Darley, Suite No. 5
1405 Arapahoe Boulder, CO 80303
Boulder, CO 80302 l
Mr. Joe Maurier
Nature Conservancy Colorado Parks and Outdoor
Colorado Chapter 3842 S. Mason
do Robert Wingington Fort Collins, CO 80525
1244 Pine Street
Boulder, CO 80302
IX. List of Preparers
Name Respoussibuhty Education
Bureau ofReclamation
Victor Grizzle Project Coordinator B.S., Wildlife
ERO Resources Corporation
Steve Dougherty Project Manager, BS,Biology
Wetland Ecology
Mark DeHaven Natural Resources MS,Natural Resource Development
BA,Business Administration
Denise Larson Biology, MA,Biology
Wetland Ecology BA,Biology
Bob Stoecker Wildlife PhD, Biology
MS, Zoology
BA, Zoology
Anjie Saunders Socioeconomics Master of Environmental Policy and
Management
BA,Economics and Environmental
Conservation
Aleta Powers CRS BA, Geography
BA, Sociology
Martha Clark Word Processing, BA,English
Technical Editing
Native Cultural Services
Pete Gleichman Cultural Resources B.A,Anthropology
a
Page 36
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
/1.
J X. Citations
Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. 442 pp.
Barrett, Rich. 1996. Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment. Personal communication.
Central Weld County Water District. 1995. Agreement for Water Services with Beebe
Draw Farms Metropolitan Water District, June 27, 1995.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 1994. Construction Guidance
Document: Preparing a Stormwater Management Plan.
Colorado Native Plant Society (CONPS). 1989. Rare plants of Colorado. Rocky
Mountain Nature Association, Colorado Native Plant Society. 73 pp.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1996. Letter to ERO Resources.
Earthlnfo. 1993. USGS Quality of Water. Summary of water quality data from U.S.
Geological Survey Records.
Empire Laboratories, Inc. 1985. Report of a Geologic Investigation for a Portion of
Beebe Draw Farms, Weld County, Colorado. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Fitzgerald, J.P., CA. Meany, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado.
Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp.
Gerstle, Andrea and Steve Melds. 1995. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Southern
Water Supply Pipeline,Fort Lupton Branch, Boulder and Weld Counties, Colorado.
M.S. on file with the Colorado Historical Society, Denver.
McKee, J. June, 1996. USFWS. Personal communication.
Native Cultural Services. 1996. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Beebe
Draw Farms Metropolitan District, Weld County, Colorado. Boulder County,
Colorado.
Opler, P. June, 1995. Personal communication.
Risk Management Services. 1994. Beebe Draw Farms Environmental Site Assessment—
Phase I. Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil survey of Weld County, Colorado— Southern
Point.
Tate,Marcia J. 1985. Machii-Ross Petroleum Company:Milton Reservoir Block Survey.
MS on file with the Colorado Historical Society,Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Survey guidelines for Spiranthes diluvialis.
Golden, Colorado.
W.W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. 1996. Letter to Paul Cockrel from George Posh,
y January 30, 1996.
Page 37
Appendices
Appendix A
Memorandum of Agreement
r--
S
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and
entered into as of this ,?,5 day of Ap b ru c r c.., , 1997 , between
BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ("Distract") , a Colorado
special district located in Weld County, Colorado; REI LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY ("Company") , a Wyoming limited liability
company doing business in Colorado as Investors Limited Liability
Company; and the BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ("Bureau") , Eastern
Colorado Projects Office, of the United States Department of
Interior, a federal agency.
RECITALS
A. District is a local government of the State of Colorado
that furnishes water, recreation and other public services within
its territorial boundaries.
B. Company is the owner of approximately 3 , 500 acres of
real property located within the District known as the Beebe Draw
Farms and Equestrian Center that has been zoned and planned for
development of 800 residential units ("Project") , including that
specific property designated as Buffer and Setback Zones A
through G in Exhibits 1 through 3 attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
C. District has entered into a lease with the Farmers
Reservoir and Irrigation Company ("FRICO") for the recreational
use of Milton Reservoir, including the peninsular lands in
Sections 10 and 15 ("Reservoir") . FRICO is the legal owner and
operator of the Reservoir and Platte Valley Canal ("Canal") ,
which forms a natural riparian woodland and backwater corridor
immediately adjacent to the Project but which is not part of the
Project.
D. District has entered into an intergovernmental
agreement with the Central Weld County Water District to furnish
exclusive water service within the District, including service to
the Project, utilizing raw water supplied by the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District ("Northern District") from
the Bureau's Colorado - Big Thompson Project ("CBT") .
E. Company has petitioned to include the Project into the
Northern District, so that CBT water can be used for the Project,
and the Northern District has approved such inclusion subject to
tar receiving the prior assent of the Secretary of Interior
("Secretarial Assent") in accordance with CET contractual
requirements with the Bureau.
F. District, in consultation with the Bureau and other
federal and State agencies, has conducted various cultural
resource and environmental clearance surveys and developed
mitigation measures that, when implemented, will minimize adverse
effects that the Project, and more particularly Secretarial
Assent to the inclusion of the Project into the Northern District
and the use of CBT water within the Project and District, may
have upon important cultural and environmental resources and will
be in compliance with all federal cultural and environmental
requirements, including the National Historic Preservation Act,
Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National
Environmental Policy Act ("Federal Laws") .
G. As more specifically set forth hereinafter, District
and Company agree, as a condition of receiving Secretarial
Assent to the inclusion of the Project into the Northern
District, to take certain affirmative actions to ameliorate
anticipated impacts to the environment resulting from development
of the Project and to consider other agency recommendations for
the development of the Project as set forth in the Planning Aid
Memorandum ("PAM") dated December 5, 1996 and developed in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado
Division of Wildlife.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the conditions, agreements and
undertakings hereinafter set forth, District, Company and Bureau
agree as follows:
1. Riparian Corridor. District and Company shall not
undertake any Project development activity (i) in the Canal
riparian/wetland/backwater corridor ("Riparian Corridor") , which
is under the control of FRICO, or (ii) on the Section 15
peninsular land, except as authorized herein. This Agreement
shall not affect FRICO's ownership, use or operation of the
Reservoir, Canal, Sections 10 or 15 peninsular lands, or
appurtenant property.
2. Establishment of Environmental Buffer Zones. Company
shall transfer and convey legal title to Buffer Zones A through G
to the District prior to the commencement of any Project
development activity. District shall maintain the Buffer Zones
as wildlife protection areas for the Riparian Corridor in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement. No Project
development or recreational activity shall be allowed in the
Buffer Zones, except for the construction, repair and maintenance
of roadways and the Canal. Activity permitted within the Buffer
Zones will be consistent with the objective of minimizing
disturbance to wildlife nesting, residing in, or otherwise using
the Riparian Corridor. Human activities will be restricted in
2
the Buffer Zones. All Buffer zones will be maintained in natural
vegetation (currently common to the site) . The Buffer Zones
shall be signed at outer perimeters to advise that such lands are
wildlife protection areas and activity within such areas is
prohibited. The Buffer Zones shall also be designated as
wildlife protection areas for the Riparian Corridor on the
official plats or in covenants for the Project filed with Weld
County.
3 . Establishment of Environmental Setback Zones. Company
shall establish Setback Zones A through G as environmental
transition areas between Project development and the Buffer Zones
for the Riparian Corridor. No structure (i.e. , residential
dwelling, building, garage, barn, or other framed structure)
shall be allowed in the Setback Zones. The Setback Zones shall
be designated as environmental transition areas for the Buffer
Zones subject to building restrictions on the official plats or
in covenants for the Project filed with Weld County.
4 . Project Covenants. Company shall establish restrictive
covenants against lands in the Project to minimize environmental
impacts associated with the Project filed with Weld County as
follows:
a. Perimeter fencing of homesites or lots will be
limited to a maximum of 5% of the lot area adjacent to or around
the residential dwelling and parking area. An additional 5% of
the lot area may be fenced for a corral or paddock.
b. On or before 6 months after completion of a
residential dwelling, a minimum of 15 trees shall be planted on
the lot (including 10 evergreen trees, of which 5 are at least 5'
high, and 5 deciduous trees, of which 2 are at least 10' high) .
Irrigated landscaping will be limited to an area no greater that
5% of the lot and will not be allowed within the Setback Zones.
Remaining lot area and common areas will be maintained in
vegetation native to the area or that which occurred onsite prior
to Project development. Removal of rock, topsoil, plants, or
similar materials from common areas will not be allowed.
c. No motorized vehicles (other than maintenance or
emergency vehicles) will be allowed off roads, driveways or
parking areas. This restriction includes motor bikes ,
snowmobiles, and other off-road recreational vehicles.
d. Dogs and cats will be controlled at all times.
The number of domestic pets and horses will comply with Weld
County regulations. Only one horse per acre will be allowed on
any lot. Horses will be confined within the corral, paddock or
fenced areas on the lot, unless being ridden or exercised.
3
Grazing on non-fenced areas of lots, trails or greenbelts will
not be allowed.
e. No hunting will be permitted within the Project
(excluding the Reservoir or other FRICO property) . Nod
5. EGAdl. There will be roadway crossings of the Canal,
Riparian Corridor, and Buffer and Setback Zones at (i) Beebe Draw
Farms Parkway and (ii) a second road in the vicinity of Buffer
and Setback Zones D and E. Further, a vehicular access road will
be constructed from Beebe Draw Farms Parkway south along the
Canal around the Reservoir shoreline to the eastern tip of the
small boat harbor peninsula in Section 10, which may be
constructed in portions of Buffer and Setback Zones F and G but
will not approach the Riparian Corridor closer than approximately
250 ' . District and Company shall comply with any permitting
requirement under Federal Laws.
6. Wetlands. No new structure shall be constructed within
any wetlands or within 100 ' of any wetlands within the Project.
Existing trails within any wetlands or within 100 ' of any
wetlands may continue to be used. Maintenance or replacement of
existing trails, structures and facilities within any wetlands or
within 100' of any wetlands is allowed. Project development and
recreational activities shall not degrade wetlands or peripheral
vegetation cover. District and Company shall comply with any
permitting requirement under Federal Laws.
7. Small Boat Harbor. Beach and Recreation Area. The
small boat harbor located on the Reservoir in Section 10 may be
enlarged; provided that such enlargement shall not encroach
further on the Riparian Corridor. There shall be no surface
water connection directly between the boat harbor and the
Riparian Corridor. Structures and other development activities
associated with the boat harbor (e.g. , launch/take-out ramps,
boat houses, slips, repair and maintenance facilities) will be
limited to the harbor shoreline and shall not be constructed in
or encroach on the Riparian Corridor or Buffer and Setback Zones,
except as authorized herein. Development activities associated
with the boat harbor will minimize the removal of trees and other
native vegetation. The beach and recreation area will be
developed on the Section 10 peninsula. Parking for the harbor,
beach and recreation areas will be limited to the northwest side
of the boat harbor and will be located at least 200' from the
Riparian Corridor. District and Company shall comply with any
permitting requirement under Federal Laws.
8. Reservoir. Recreational boating on the Reservoir
shall be limited to wind and hand propelled craft and motorized
boats no greater that 5 horsepower. District or Company shall
not permit fueling concessions or operations on the Reservoir or
at the boat harbor. Covenants or District regulations will
4
f— prohibit use of the Reservoir shoreline, except at beach and
recreation facilities. It is acknowledged by the Bureau that
FRICO owns and has operational control of the Reservoir, Canal,
Sections 10 and 15 peninsular and appurtenant lands.
9. Section 15 Peninsula. There shall be no Project
development, roads, trails or recreational activities conducted
on the Section 15 peninsula by the District or Company. The
peninsula shall be designated as a wildlife protection area with
signage indicating its status and access restrictions. The
peninsula and adjacent coves and backwaters shall be off-limits
to boaters.
10. Secretarial Assent. Bureau hereby approves and provides
Secretarial Assent for the Northern District to furnish CBT water
for use within the Project and District. Bureau shall advise the
Northern District in writing of its approval of Secretarial
Assent upon execution of this Agreement.
11. Term. This Agreement shall become effective and
binding upon the parties upon execution of the Agreement. The
terms of this Agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the
successors and assigns of the parties.
12. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended, from time to
time, by agreement between the parties. No amendment,
modification or alteration of this Agreement shall be binding
upon the parties unless the same is in writing and approved by
the duly authorized representatives of each party.
13 . Severability. If any term, section or other provision
of this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or
unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such term,
section or other provision shall not affect any of the remaining
provisions of this Agreement.
14 . Waiver. No waiver by either party of any right, term
or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed as a
waiver of any other right, term or condition, nor shall a waiver
of any breach hereof be deemed to constitute a waiver of any
subsequent breach, whether of the same or of a different
provision of this Agreement.
15. gemedies. _ Every obligation assumed by, or imposed
upon, either party shall be enforceable by any appropriate
action, petition or proceeding at law or in equity. In addition
to any other remedy provided by law, this Agreement shall be
specifically enforceable by either party. This Agreement shall
be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado
or, if applicable, Federal Laws.
5
16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in
multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an
original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same """)
document.
17. Entirety. This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter
herein, and all prior negotiations, representations, contracts,
understandings or agreements pertaining to such matters are
merged into and superseded by this Agreement.
18. Conflictina Provisions. In the event any provision of
this Agreement conflicts with any provision of the PAM or other
applicable agency documents, then the provision of this Agreement
shall govern and control such conflicting provisions.
J
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
on the day and year first above written.
J
BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
By:
J s Fell, Ch ' an
/��
ATTEST: \ " "w /
Thome A.
Burk, Secretary
Date: 1 �2- I , 1997
(SEAL)
REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
dba Investors ve}— Limited Liability Company
...I By: fra 6? 2 e `/li
Manager
Date: 2, 6 , 1997
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (Eastern Colorado Projects Divisions) ,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
By:
Title: 1444:113452,—
Date: f-'PL•rce0 24 , 1997
C
7
Appendix B
Planning Aid Memorandum
l
r
ES/CO:BR/Beebe Draw
Mail Stop 65412
MEMORANDUM
To: Area Manager, Eastern Colorado
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
From: Field Supervisor, Ecological Services
subject: Planning Aid Memorandum for the Beebe Draw Farms Development Project
This planning aid memorandum provides the jointly developed recommendations of the Service
and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Division), Northeast Regional Office, for ameliorating
anticipated impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat which will result from development of the
proposed Beebe Draw Farms project (Project). These recommendations are intended to serve as
environmental commitments and stipulations for Project development. A draft memorandum
was issued as a basis for discussion from which the Service and Division sought agreement
among the Service, Division, Reclamation, and Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District
(District) on Project wildlife protection measures. This memorandum outlines measures agreed
to (so noted) and those which are retained as recommendations of the Service and Division.
This memorandum and the planning coordination it represents have been prepared pursuant to
the requirements of and authority conferred by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). It focuses on wildlife resources other than
species listed under the Fndangered Species Act, which will be addressed separately pursuant to
requirements of Section 7 of the Act.
J.oration and Description of the Project
The Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center is largely a residential development located at
Milton Reservoir,-6 miles east of Platteville and 9 miles south of Greeley in south-central Weld
County, Colorado. The Project, encompassing some 5,775 acres, would subdivide
approximately 3,500 acres into 800 single-family residential parcels, eventually accommodating
an estimated 2,000 permanent residents. It would incorporate approximately 1,700 acres as
greenbelt, including 40 miles of hiking, riding, and training trails; and about 400 acres for an
Olympic caliber equestrian center, small boat harbor, clubhouse facilities, and other
development features. The Project would also include 2,285 acres leased from the Farmers
Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO), including 800-acre Milton Reservoir and adjacent
lands for recreational purposes.
2
,Site Description and Biotic CnmmnnitirS
The Project site is located in rolling sandhill prairie adjacent to Milton Reservoir. Dominant
species are prairie sandreed, Indian ricegrass, sand bluestem, needlegrass, cheatgrass, and sand
sage. The site apparently has a history of cultivation and grazing, with evidence of overuse
(ERO, 1995), e.g. extensive establishment of cheatgrass and reseeding with crested wheat and
smooth brome. Most of the site which is to be subdivided for housing is in this vegetation type,
west of the Platte Valley ranal.
Secondarily dominant biotic communities are cottonwood and peachleaf willow woodlands
located on much of the reservoir periphery and along over a mile of the Platte Valley Canal
above its inlet to the reservoir. Woodlands on the reservoir periphery have likely developed on
periodically exposed shoreline and peninsular sites where bare, moist substrates are made
available and are maintained by an elevated ground-water table supported by the reservoir. A
mature riparian woodland exists along the Platte Valley Canal, probably supported by seepage
from the canal and the elevated ground-water table. This corridor lies in a pre-existing natural
drainage, along which the riparian woodland may have originally established.
When the reservoir is filled, significant portions of the riparian woodland are inundated by a
rising water table, creating a forested swamp of pools and depressional and backwater wetlands.
The combination of living and standing dead tees, shrub understory, and water provides
diversified, multi-structured nesting, feeding, and loafing habitat that is valuable for a variety of
bird species, including cavity-nesters, waterfowl, waders, riparian species, and raptors. An J
active heron and double-crested cormorant rookery occupies portions of the riparian/backwater
corridor. Beaver also use this corridor. The structured habitat of the corridor in what is
otherwise open grassland provides important cover to a variety of mammalian species for
movement, denning, resting, and as storm cover. At the same time, the seasonal extended
periods of inundation caused by filling the reservoir to higher levels than have typically been
maintained in the past, are resulting in the loss of numerous trees, including some being used
for nesting by herons and cormorants. Unless suitable alternate nest trees are available at
higher elevations above the water table or establish outward from current locations, tee nesting
habitat may ultimately diminish.
Likewise, the peninsular sites, particularly the one in northwest Section 15, provide a
combination of woodland and secluded coves, seasonal backwaters or wetlands, and ponds.
Wildlife use of the Section 15 site appears to be high. Numerous waterfowl use the sheltered
coves. Bald eagles use the peninsula for hunting perches and probably for nocturnal roosting.
It is not currently known whether communal nocturnal roosting occurs at this or any other sites
around the reservoir. An active heron/cormorant rookery occurs on this peninsula as well.
A variety of waterfowl use the reservoir, including geese, cormorants, white pelicans, and
dabbling and diving duck species. The shoreline likely supports an unknown level of use by
shorebirds and wading species, as well as various mammalian and amphibian species. Sheltered
coves and wetland sites afford protected feeding, resting, and nesting sites.
n
3
Scattered emergent wetlands and ponds (estimated 34 acres) are found on other portions of the
site in depressions and in association with seepage from the Evans Ditch and West Spear Canal,
predominantly in the eastern portion of the Project, east pf the riparian corridor (ERO, 1995).
These wetlands are used by species such as waterfowl, wetland passerines, Woodhouse's toad,
etc. The largest extent of wetlands is found below and near the dam, both on and adjacent to
the site, where the water table is maintained at or near the surface.
Potential Adverse Prnjeet Imparts
Several unique and important wildlife habitats or sites are present within the Project area that
could be adversely impacted either directly or indirectly as a result of development. These -
include the forested riparian/backwater corridor found along the Platte Valley ("anal from the
inlet into Milton Reservoir to approximately 1.25 miles from the inlet; a woodland/wetland
peninsular complex in section 15; and Milton Reservoir itself.
Platte Valley Canal Riparian/VVetland/Backwater Corridor
This corridor remains the property of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company and is not
part of the Project. Nonetheless, the Project will develop land immediately adjacent to this
corridor, including residential development along its west side, a road crossing through the
middle of the corridor, another road along the east side of the corridor, a small boat harbor near
the inlet or southern end of the corridor, and nearby recreational facilities.
While few direct impacts to the riparian corridor are currently anticipated, indirect adverse
impacts are inevitable. The riparian corridor is probably no more than 200 yards wide at its
greatest width, but in most places probably half that. Yet the structural diversity and wetland
characteristics make this an extremely important wildlife habitat and movement corridor.
Encroachment on this narrow but important corridor by an 800-home development, along with
attendant roads and recreational facilities, will have a profound disturbance effect on the
corridor. Current plans are to plat residential lots beginning at 100 feet from the property line
at the western edge of the riparian corridor. Structural setbacks are to be another 100 feet from
the edge of the lot. A future golf course is also under consideration for location near some
portions of the riparian corridor.
The close proximity of intensive human activity to what is now a relatively undisturbed site is
likely to cause a significant reduction in use of the riparian/backwater corridor by wildlife.
Some species will adjust to the proximal disturbance as long as activity is precluded from the
riparian corridor itself. Some species are, however, more sensitive to disturbance, or are more
sensitive during certain life cycle activities, such as nesting. The Service and Division are
especially concerned that close proximity of human activities could cause abandonment of the
heron/cormorant rookery now active in the corridor, or use by large raptors, including bald
`v eagles. Dogs and cats, if not closely controlled, could have a major negative impact on wildlife
in the corridor, particularly on waterfowl, ground nesting birds, and many mammals which use
the corridor. Without proper planning, nonpoint runoff from lots, roads, and recreational
facilities could impact water quality of the wetland/backwater complex found in the corridor.
4
Section 15 Peninsula �.
J
This is also a high value—high use habitat. As with the.riparian/backwater corridor, this
peninsula is a multi-layered habitat with abundant water. The peninsular formation increases
the isolation of the site and affords sheltered coves and seasonal pools and wetlandc which are
very attractive to waterfowl and other species. A heron/cormorant rookery is also found at the
site. Its seclusion, large trees, extension into the reservoir, and proximity to high waterfowl use
all make it a valuable hunting, loafing, and roosting site for bald eagles and, perhaps, ospreys.
The District has considered the possibility of using this peninsula for a recreational site, and has
it under lease from FRICO for that purpose. Trampling, physical destruction of habitat, and—
most importantly, the intrusion of intense human activity directly into the site would likely
cause a loss of much of the existing wildlife value of the site. While the Environmental
Review and Evaluation (ERO, 1995) suggests that timing restrictions could be used to avoid
impacts to the rookery and•bald eagles, this may prove somewhat impractical. Bald eagles use
the site from November to March. Herons and cormorants are likely to use the site from March
into the summer months. This would significantly narrow the available window for human use.
Further, the activity on the peninsula from mid-summer to early fall would adversely affect its
use by waterfowl, other bird species, deer, and other wildlife. Some seasonally flooded sites
would probably have to be altered and eliminated to provide for road or wail access.
Wilton Reservoir
This irrigation reservoir is leased from FRICO by the District for recreation use. The reservoir
is heavily used by a wide variety of waterfowl and shorebirds probably feed and nest on
portions of its shoreline. Bald eagles and, perhaps, ospreys feed regularly on fish and
waterfowl at the reservoir. Development and increased recreational use of the reservoir will
inevitably impact wildlife use of the reservoir. Current Project plans are to limit boating to
hand and sail-powered boats, and motorized boats of 5 hp or less. This will cause far less
disturbance than would the use of high-powered motorized craft and water skiing activities.
Nonetheless, the increased human presence will likely alter behavioral patterns of waterfowl in
particular. The greatest effects would likely occur where recreational activities intrude into
sheltered high value sites, such as coves and peripheral emergent or wooded wetlands or
swamps. These are often sites of shelter and protection, and may afford especially valuable
feeding and, possibly, nesting sites. Intrusion into these sites may have a disproportionately
negative effect on waterfowl and wading bird populations.
The Remainder of the Project Site
Approximately 3,000 acres of sandhill prairie will be encompassed within a residential housing
community. To a large extent, use of this habitat will be largely lost to many species. Project
plans call for a network of open space and trails. Depending on the design and layout of these ^a
greenbelt areas, some residual wildlife use may be promoted and retained.
5
Recommendations for Project Planning Modification and Restrictions
Riparian and Backwater Corridor Along The Platte Valley Canal
• This corridor should be maintained as an exclusion zone. It is our understanding this
corridor is not part of the development and is, therefore, not under Project control. Should
that change or the opportunity to acquire this corridor or some control thereof be afforded,
the corridor should be maintained as protected wildlife habitat, where all development and
human activities are excluded. It would be highly desirable to obtain fee title or a
perpetual conservation easement in order to permanently protect the zone from
development..
• An undeveloped buffer should be maintained in perpetuity between the
riparian/backwater corridor and all development and residential property. The
purpose of this buffer will be to provide a zone of minimal human disturbance around the
riparian/backwater corridor to help perpetuate use of the corridor by a variety of wildlife;
and to help prevent water quality degradation of the aquatic habitats in the corridor as a
result of non-point runoff.
The buffer should be maintained from the north end of the development to at least the
canal inlet area, which is the approximate termination of the riparian/backwater corridor.
As agreed among all parties, a variable-width buffer will be maintained in perpetuity as
follows:
Buffer Zone 1: From the canal inlet (approximate termination of the riparian
forest/backwater corridor) upstream to the crossing of Beebe Draw Farms Parkway,
approximately 0.75 miles from the inlet, the minimum undeveloped buffer between the
Project property line outside the riparian corridor and any development will be 300 feet.
This buffer will be comprised of a minimum perpetual undeveloped buffer of 200 feet
between the Project property boundary at the edge of the riparian corridor and
residential lots or other Project development, and an additional required minimum
setback of any structural improvements of 100 feet from lot boundaries. [This buffer is
referenced on the Project survey, revised 18 April, 19%, as Buffer and Setback Zones B
and Gj
The buffer should be a minimum of 300 feet between the riparian corridor and the small
boat harbor, all recreation facilities, and any other site of intense or concentrated
activity. This buffer will be comprised of a minimum perpetual undeveloped buffer of
200 feet between the Project property boundary at the edge of the riparian corridor and
l Project facilities, and an additional minimum setback of any structural improvements of
100 feet from the buffer boundary. Where the specified minimum buffer width is not
possible, the maximum possible buffer width will be incorporated.
6
rte.
Buffer Zone 2: From the crossing of Beebe Draw Farms Parkway, approximately
0.75 miles from the inlet, to approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the Parkway, or where
the riparian forest largely ends, the minimum undeveloped buffer between the Project
property line outside the riparian corridor and any development will be 200 feet. This
buffer will be comprised of a minimum perpetual undeveloped buffer of 100 feet between
the property bonnrtary at the edge of the riparian corridor and residential lots or other
Project development, and an additional required minimum setback of any structural
improvements of 100 feet from lot boundaries. [This buffer is referenced on the Project
survey, revised 18 April, 1996, as Buffer and Setback Zones C and F]
Buffer Zone 3: From approximately 1.25 miles from the inlet, or where the riparian
forest largely ends, upstream to the northern Project bonnrtary, the minimum buffer
between the Project property line outside the riparian corridor and any development will
be 150 feet. This buffer will be comprised of a minimum perpetual undeveloped buffer
of 50 feet between the Project property boundary at the edge of the riparian corridor and
residential lots or other Project development, and an additional required minimum
setback of any structural improvements of 100 feet from lot boundaries. [This buffer is
referenced on the Project survey, revised 18 April, 1996, as Buffer and Setback Zones D
and E]
► The Service and Division consider the above agreed buffer widths as minimums and
believe greater protective widths are desirable,particularly at sensitive sites and where j
disturbance levels are likely to be high (such as recreation sites). Wherever Project
planners can accommodate greater buffering between the riparian corridor and
development;particularly at such sites, we would encourage you to do so. As buffer
widths are increased, retention of wildlife use in the corridor will likely increase as well.
► The Service and Division desire that buffers (including setbacks) not include any roads
or other development features.
► Activity permitted within the riparian buffer zone should be consistent with the objective
of minimiring disturbance to wildlife nesting, residing in, or otherwise using the
ripariantbackwater corridor. It is agreed among all partirc that covenants or plat
restrictions for the development, as filed with Weld County, will designate the riparian
corridor and its buffer a wildlife protection zone. Covenants or plat restrictions will
restrict human activities from the riparian buffer zone in order to provide wildlife in the
riparian corridor with some insulation from human activity. The buffer will be signed
along its outer perimeter advising people that the area behind the signs is a wildlife
protection area and that activity within that area is restricted. •
► It is agreed among all patties that the riparian buffer should be perpetually maintained
in natural vegetation.
► The Service and Division recommend that covenants require that the 100-foot setback of
residential lots be maintained in or reseeded to native herbaceous and woody species.
7
n
► Planting tall, high value native shrubs, such as wild plum, in the buffer near the edge of
the riparian corridor should be considered to increase visual and sound isolation of the
corridor, and to add bird nesting habitat and food resources. Such planting should be
undertaken in consultation with CDOW.
• Project planning should incorporate carefully designed plans to prevent water quality
degradation of the wetland/backwater corridor resulting from nonpoint runoff from
residential lots, streets, or boat harbor facilities. To prevent water quality degradation,
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers should be carefully controlled on all Project lands
where exposure to water could result through direct application, wind drift, surface water
runoff, and percolation to ground water with subsequent transport to surface water bodies.
• We recommend constructing a foot path beyond the outer edge of the buffer along the
east side of the riparian corridor, where the buffer is adjoined by common property.
This would likely help minimirr activity within the buffer while encouraging walking and
jogging at a safer viewing distance from the riparian/backwater corridor.
• Observation/sitting/picnic decks might be constructed at elevated sites with common
r access along either side of the riparian/backwater corridor. Such facilities can
encourage interest in wildlife by providing good viewing opportunities at safe viewing
distanrec.
• A second road crossing of the riparian corridor within the development should be
made towards the north end of the development, at a point where riparian vegetation
is narrowest and least developed. This will minirnite habitat destruction and the effect
of habitat segmentation.
Small Boat Harbor
• Construction, initial dredging, and maintenance of the boat harbor and its inlet should
minimize removal of trees and other native vegetation. Construction and maintenance
activities should be limited to the immediate periphery of the small boat harbor.
• Plant native trees and shrubs on the west and north sides of the harbor. Maintaining a
grove of trees and shrubs along the west and north sides of the harbor may encourage some
nesting and provide an important visual buffer between harbor activity and the riparian
corridor. Proximity of disturbance can often be ameliorated by interrupting the line of
sight between disturbance and sensitive wildlife use sites. Such vegetative buffers also
tend to absorb sound, thus diminishing sound disturbance.
• The harbor should not be enlarged so as to further encroach on the
riparian/backwater corridor. Any required enlargement should be to the north.
8
• Structures and other developments associated with or surrounding the boat harbor
(including slips, boathouses, repair/maintenance facilities, and roads) should be
limited to the immediate harbor shoreline, and should under no circumstances
encroach on the riparian/backwater corridor. Development around the harbor should
NOT occur towards the riparian/backwater corridor. If an access, maintenance road is
required, it should be placed at the periphery of the harbor.
• A single launch and take-out facility should be on the east or northeast side of the
harbor or at another nonsensitive site on the reservoir.
• There should be no surface water connection directly between the harbor and the
riparian/backwater corridor to help prevent water quality degradation of that
corridor.
• Fueling concessions or operations should not be permitted at the lake or the harbor to
minimize water quality degradation and the rhnuces of inadvertent oil and gas spills.
It is the understanding of the Service and Division that no such concessions will be
permitted.
• Activities and operations at and near the harbor should be designed to minimise
disturbance to wildlife in the riparian/backwater corridor.
• Parking facilities should be on the north side of the harbor, near the clubhouse. The
Service and Division understand Project planners intend to place the parking facility on the
peninsula to the west side of the boat harbor. We cannot concur in this design
modification. It is our preference that such a facility be located adjacent to the clubhouse,
north of the harbor. A parking facility to the west of the harbor will substantially increase
activity near the riparian/backwater zone. A secondary but less preferred alternative
would be on the peninsula, south of the harbor.
• The Service and Division prefer that road access to and parking facilities at or on the
peninsula adjacent to the boat harbor not be constructed, as this will greatly increase
disturbance near the inlet area of the riparian/backwater zone. Designs for use of the
harbor area by residents should be such that activity near the riparian/backwater corridor,
particularly around the west and northwest portions of the harbor, be minimised.
Beach and Recreation Area
• This facility should be located on the peninsula adjacent to the small boat harbor to
minimize disturbance to site vegetation communities and wildlife. It is agreed among
ales that this will be the location of this facility.
• The facility should be located at the eastern end of the peninsula. 1
9
• Access to this area should be a footpath from the small boat harbor facility or, better,
a footbridge over the harbor inlet from the clubhouse site. This would provide easier
access, a unique vantage, reduce congestion around the harbor, and keep people further
from the riparian/backwater corridor. The Servicc'anti Division recognize that use of
sailboats may make difficult or preclude a footbridge over the harbor inlet. It is our
understanding that Project planners intend to provide access to the beach area by road
around the harbor. As discussed above, this is considered the least desirable alternative by
the Service and Division.
• Any vehicular access beyond that launch/take out facility should be limited to a
harbor access road along the immediate periphery of the small boat harbor, as may be
required for service activities. Regular public vehicular arrrsa to the peninsula should
probably be restricted.
Development Along the Lake Shoreline Between the Canal Inlet and Southern Peninsula
(Lake Front Drive Area)
• A proposed buffer of 100 feet between the Project property boundary and residential
lots, and a further 100 foot setback from lot edge to any structural improvement, are
acceptable in this area to the Service and Division as minimum protective buffers.
• The perimeter buffer should be perpetually maintained in native vegetation.
• An observation/sitting/picnic deck or decks might be placed at an elevated vantage
beyond the buffer, at a point of common access, to encourage viewing of the lake and
wildlife at a safe viewing distance.
Southern (Section 15) Peninsula
All development on and access to this peninsula should be precluded. The peninsula is a
very valuable wildlife area, which should be perpetually protected as t wildlife preserve. It is
the understanding of the Service and Division that this site has been dropped from the Project
and is no longer a part of the Project. However, we also understand that the site remains under
lease by the District from FRICO. Should the opportunity be available, the Service and
Division would strongly encourage the District to acquire long-term protection for this site
through acquisition and restrictive deed covenants or conservation easement mechanisms.
it is agreed among all partiec that this peninsula will not be developed. No roads, trails or
structures will be constructed on or to the peninsula. Instead, the peninsula will be protected
for wildlife. Further, covenants for the development will designate this peninsula a wildlife
sanctuary and restrict all recreational activities from the peninsula. The peninsula will further
be signed to exclude access to the peninsula either from the development side or from the lake.
The peninsula and adjacent coves will be designated off-limits to boaters.
10
Milton Reservoir
The Service and Division understand that the District has no ownership control over Milton
Reservoir or adjacent properties not owned by the District. Nonetheless, the District is leasing
recreation rights to this facility. As such, District use of the facility has the potential to directly
and adversely affect the facility, and the wildlife and their habitats associated with the facility.
Consequently, the Service and Division request that certain protective measures be emplaced for
use of the facility under agreement with facility owners. These measures will help protect not
only wildlife and their habitats, but the facility itself.
• Shoreline protection. A management plan for use of the lake shoreline should be —
developed and emplaced with covenant restrictions to maintain physical and vegetative
integrity of the shoreline. Without careful planning and use restrictions, shoreline
degradation will be inevitable, resulting in shoreline erosion and lost habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and other.wildlife.
• High value/high use areas for waterfowl, wading birds, or other wildlife should be
identified and access restricted to all boating and other recreational activities.
• Peripheral emergent or wooded wetlands, high value coves, and other important wildlife
use sites should be designated off-limits to boating and other recreational activities in order
to provide protected zones for feeding, nesting, and sheltering of waterfowl, wading birds
and other species. Such designations should be accomplished jointly with CDOW.
• Project planners should consider limiting boat use to wind, hand, and electric powered
craft. Gasoline powered motors will introduce significant quantities of oil and gasoline
into the aquatic environment. Both water supply and aquatic wildlife habitat can be better
protected by avoiding use of motorized craft on the lake.
Other Protective Measures
• Leash laws. Covenants should include a mandatory leash law with penalties for owners of
any pets chasing wildlife or otherwise running free.
• No fences. Fences should be prohibited except around exclusion zones, dog runs, and
hone paddocks to permit free movement. Such restrictions in other developments have
shown wildlife use of fence-free developments is typically far greater than in developments
with fences. Fence design should consider the need for wildlife movement (consult
CDOW's District Wildlife Manager). Existing covenant restrictions limited fencing to
areas adjacent to houses and around horse paddocks.
• No hunting. Hunting is to be prohibited within the development.
• Native vegetation. Covenants should require that all private, buffer, and open space
ground be maintained in native vegetation, with the exception of small landscaped flower
and shrub beds near the house. Certain plantings may be desirable to enhanre wildlife
habitat, but should be determined in consultation with CDOW. The Service and Division
11
understand that lawn areas will be limited to 5 percent of the lot size. They should further
be restricted to near the house and from the setback zone.
• Open space/riding trails/movement corridors. Open space and riding trails will be
incorporated into development plans. If designed correctly, these could retain significant
residual wildlife habitat and provide important movement corridors for wildlife through the
development. Corridors should be as wide as possible, retain native vegetation, be
continuous, and connect key wildlife use areas. Consultation with CDOW's District
Wildlife Manager is highly recommended in designing these open space areas. Both the
feeling of openess provided and the increased wildlife use that is likely to result should be
positive features for the development.
• Wetlands. Development and other activity should strive to avoid all wetlands
(floodplain/riparian, depressional, shoreline). Wetlands are valuable as wildlife habitat,
for ground-water recharge, and in maintaining water quality. Buffers of natural vegetation
should be maintained between all wetlands and any development or high-use activity.
Width of buffers should be 100-300 feet depending on the nature of the wetland, adjacent
development, and functions and values being protected. Appropriate buffers can be
determined in consultation with the Service, CDOW, and Corps (where 404 permitting is
involved). His agreed among all parties that minimum buffer widths around wetlands
will be 100 feet and that activities will not degrade wetlands or their peripheral vegetation
J cover. Existing horse trails are accepted by all parties, provided that activities to maintain
and upgrade trails do not degrade wetlands or their peripheral vegetation cover.
Where Project actions will necessarily affect wetlands or "waters of the United States"
(e.g., at the small boat harbor and road crossings of the Platte Valley Canal), it should be
recognized that a permit may be required from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Such permit applications will require review by and
coordination with the Service and Division in compliant-. with the Endangered Species and
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts. Mitigation for any adverse effects to these sites may
also be required. Therefore, we recommend advance coordination among the applicant,
Service, Division, and Corps regarding any 404 permitting actions to achieve a consensus
approach to each action.
• We highly recommend that Project planners coordinate with the Service and Division
Partners for Wildlife/Private Lands programs headquartered at the Division's State
Office in Denver. These programs are designed to assist private landowners in developing
or improving wildlife habitat consistent with their other land use goals. The programs can
offer expertise, design, assistance in implementing design plans, and funding for habitat
improvement projects.
C
12
Protective measures and restrictions should be included in the Environmental Assessment as
environmental commitments and should be written into covenants and development plans (along
with enforcement mechanisms) to ensure both permanence and enforceability. Final
environmental protection measures should be jointly determined among the developers, BR,
USFWS, CDOW, and COE. We recommend these measures then be formalized in a document
to which participating entities are signatory. This document should be appended to NEPA
documents, and any §404. Its provisions may be incorporated as permit stipulations by
reference.
Thoughtful planning designed to maximise continued use of the Project site and its vicinity by
wildlife is likely to prove to be a positive and enhancing feature of the Project. The Service and
Division appreciate any cooperation by developers in protecting wildlife and its habitat, and are
available to offer assistance in protection and enhancement efforts.
•
•
Atrarhmenr: Concurrence of the Colorado Division of Wildlife
et: ES/State Supervisor
CD0W/Northeast Region(Attn: Kari Doerr/Courmey Crawford/Jerry Craig)
C0Erfrl-lakes Office (Atm: Tim Carey and Sandra Lay)
EPA/Reg. 8, (Atm: Sarah Fowler)
Weld County Planning Department(Atm: County Planner)
File: BR/Beebe Draw
Reading File
PATT0N: Consultslbeebepam.wpd: 7/10/96
1
Appendix C
Cultural Resource Clearance
C
aes'�"F" United States Department of the Interior
�'F
L
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Great Plains Region ,
' °'3 iefr Nebraska-Kansas Area Office
P.O. Box 1607
'"" 'mum Grand'Island. Nebraska 68802-1607
NK-RES MAR 2 5 1996
•
•
Mr. James E. Hartmann
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway
Denver, CO 60203
Subject: Submittal of A Class Ill Cultural Resource Inventory of the Beebe Draw
Fauns Metropolitan District, Weld County, Colorado, a Report about Cultural
Resources on Land in T3N, R65W, Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 17
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
Enclosed is one copy of the subject report written by Mitchell, Phillips and Gleichman
about a survey Native Cultural Services (NCS) conducted on land owned by the Beebe
Draw Farms Metropolitan District (BDFMD). Attached to the report are relevant
Colorado site recordation forms.
The BDFMD property is a proposed land inclusion of the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (NCWCD). Any NCWCD land inclusion is considered an
"undertaking' under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966 as amended. The survey and report were completed to help the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) meet the responsibilities defined for federal agencies in
Section 110 of the NHPA.
From these surveys, NCS recorded sixteen (16) cultural properties comprising four
historic sites, six historic isolates, and six prehistoric isolates. NCS field evaluated the
sites as lacking the qualities/criteria for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
eligibility. The isolates are not eligible for inclusion in the Register.
Reclamation agrees with NCS's evaluation of the NRHP eligibility of these cultural
properties. Reclamation requests your concurrence with their evaluation so that this
krnr land inclusion may go on as planned.
2
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at the above address or
phone (308) 389-4572.
Sincerely,
ROBERT K. B:P.SING
Robert K. Biasing
Area Archeologist
Enclosures
cc: Jim Fell, 11409 West 17th Place, Lakewood, CO 80215
Peter Gleichman, NCS, 4484 Hamilton CL, Boulder, CO 80303
(without enclosures)
bc: Vic Grizzle, EC-1340, Eastern Colorado Area Office
Will Tulley, EC-1350, Eastern Colorado Area Office
(without enclosures)
NEPearson:mak:3/21/98 ENV-3.00
.r1
Appendix D
Biological Assessment
r
l
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and
Equestrian Center
Weld County, Colorado
..J
Prepared for—
U.S.Bureau of Reclamation
Great Plains Region
Eastern Colorado Area Office
11056 West County Road 18E
Loveland, Colorado 80537
Prepared by—
ERO Resources Corporation
1740 High Street
Denver, Colorado 80218
March 1997
Contents
Introduction 1
Threatened and Endangered Species 3
Bald Eagle 3
The Ladies'-tresses Orchid 3 .01
Whooping Crane 4
Least Tern (Interior Population) 4
Piping Plover 5
Candidate Species 6
White-faced Ibis 6
Mountain Plover 6
Black Tem 7
Ferruginous Hawk 7
Western Snowy Plover 8
Loggerhead Shrike 8
Baird's Sparrow 8
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 9
Fringed-tailed Myotis 9
Swift Fox 9
Regal Fritillary Butterfly 10
Colorado Butterflyweed 10
Showy Prairie Gentian 11
Methods of Impact Assessment 11
Impact Assessment 11
Bald Eagle 11
Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid 13
Whooping Crane 13
Least Tern(Interior Population) 13 1116
Piping Plover 13
Candidate Species 14
White-faced This 14
Mountain Plover 14
Black Tern 14
Ferruginous Hawk 15
Western Snowy Plover 15
Loggerhead Shrum 15
Baird's sparrow 15
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 15
Fringed-Tailed Myotis 16
Swift Fox 16
Regal Fritillary Butterfly 16
Colorado Butterflyweed 16
Showy Prairie Gentian 16
Conclusion 16
Citations 17 -
Tables
Table 1. Threatened, endangered, and candidate species. 2
Biological Assessment
W Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and
Equestrian Center
March 1997
Introduction
The Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District (District) has been organized as a political
subdivision of the state to provide various public services to a proposed residential development
and equestrian center on 3,500 acres 9 miles south of Greeley, Colorado. The proposed Beebe
Draw Farms and Equestrian Center development is located on the west and northwest sides of
Milton Reservoir. The District is seeking inclusion within the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (NCWCD) Colorado-Big Thompson Project service area so that an
adequate water supply can be provided to the development. The Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation)is required to approve any inclusion to the NCWCD and, as a result, the proposed
00 Beebe Draw Farms project is considered a federal action. All federal actions are required to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),Endangered Species Act (ESA),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and other federal laws.
This document will analyze the effects of the proposed Beebe Draw development on federally-
listed and candidate species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) as potrntinUy
occurring near the project(Table 1). Information on the presence of threatened, endangered, and
candidate species in or near the project area was collected from several sources including the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW), Colorado Natural
Heritage Program (CNHP) database, observations of researchers in the area, and field surveys.
Potential impacts to species were based on the presence of the species, suitable habitat, expected
disturbance to the species or habitat, and environmental commitments to minimize adverse effects.
A separate Environmental Assessment was prepared to address other environmental effects of the
proposed project.
•
1
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife prepared a Planning
Aid Memo (PAM) pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Appendix B). Although
the PAM addresses wildlife resources in general, the measures agreed to by the District will help qgl
minimize effects to federally-listed species as well as other wildlife. The District has incorporated
the agreed to measures of the PAM into covenants filed with Weld County and a Memorandum of
Agreement between the District and Bureau of Reclamation (Appendix A).
Table 1. Threatened, endangered, and candidate species.
Common Name[status .. . Scientific Name
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald eagle[threatened] Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Whooping crane[endangered] Grits americana
Least tern,interior population[endangered] Sterna antillarum
Piping plover[threatened] Charadrius melodus
Plants
Ute ladies'-tresses orchid[threatened] Spiranthes diluviails
Candidate Species for Listing -�
Birds
•
White-faced this Plegadis chihi
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus
Black tern Chlidonias niger
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regal!:
Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludoviciamts
Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii
Mammals
Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei
Fringed-tailed myotis Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis
Swift fox Vulpes velar
Insects
Regal fritillary butterfly Speyerla idalia
Plants •
Colorado butterflyweed Gaura neomexicana sip. coloradensis
Showy prairie gentian Eustoma grandiiflorum
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1996.
•
2
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Threatened and Endangered Species
Bald Eagle
In Colorado, bald eagles usually arrive in October and leave in March with populations
numbering between approximately 600 to 800 birds. Bald eagles normally are found near
reservoirs and major rivers where fish, waterfowl and other prey are available. Eagles prefer large
• trees such as cottonwoods near open water for perching during the day and roosting at night.
Eagles typically choose a communal roosting site where they return year after year. Bald eagles
are sensitive to disturbance of these communal roosting sites. Disturbing a communal roost may
cause the birds to abandon an area altogether (USFWS 1983).
Although some nesting occurs in Colorado, most bald eagles migrate to more northern
breeding grounds. Breeding bald eagles have been recorded in north central Colorado, the
northern Front Range, and in southwest Colorado. Bald eagles usually nest in large trees, similar
to those used for perching and roosting.
Based on local reports, bald eagles are commonly seen at Milton Reservoir in the winter.
During a field trip in March 1995, one mature bald eagle was seen flying low over the water and
perching in a large cottonwood tree on the northwest shore (Stoecker 1996). Other eagles have
been spotted on the west and south sides of the reservoir(personal communication with Courtney
Crawford, Colorado Division of Wildlife). The large cottonwood trees on the Beebe Farm site
provide perching and roosting habitat. It is not known whether communal roosting occurs on the
site or if bald eagles have nested on or adjacent to the site(Stoecker 1996).
Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid
The Ute ladies'-tresses orchid grows in seasonally moist soils near springs, lakes, or perennial
streams and nearby flood plains. This rare plant has been found in only a few locations in
Colorado,Utah,Nevada, and Wyoming in areas below 6,500 feet in elevation(CONPS 1994).
Typically, orchid sites include old stream channels and alluvial terraces, subirrigated meadows,
and other sites where the soil is saturated within 18 inches of the surface at least temporarily
during the spring or summer growing seasons (USFWS 1992a). This orchid is not known to
occur in habitats with overly dense vegetation or overgrazed areas (Coyner 1990;Jennings 1990).
3
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Potential threats to this species include stream channelization, water diversions, urban
development, and agricultural use(Arft 1994). A survey for the orchid did not reveal any
populations within the project area.
Whooping Crane
The tallest bird in North America, the whooping crane, is extremely rare because of
overhunting and habitat loss. Two flocks exist— the original flock migrates between Aransas
National Wildlife Refuge in Texas and Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada. In the 1970s, a
second flock was established when wildlife biologists placed eggs from the original flock in nests
of the closely related sandhill cranes (Wassink 1991). This combined flock of whooping cranes
and sandhill cranes summers in Idaho and winters in New Mexico (Andrews and Righter 1992).
None of the whooping cranes in the combined flock have reproduced.
Whooping cranes migrate through Colorado foraging and roosting in a variety of natural and
man-made wetland habitats including marshes, stockponds, flooded grain fields, shallow
reservoirs, and rivers. During migration, whooping cranes usually roost in areas free of
vegetation and tall trees that restrict visibility.
•
Only a few birds were observed in Colorado before transplantation efforts in the 1970s. Since
then, there have been spring sightings of the bird in Colorado, including along the South Platte
River in Weld County. Presumably, these cranes are from the transplanted flock(Andrews and
Righter 1992).
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of the whooping crane in the project area.
There are no known observations of whooping cranes in the vicinity of Milton Reservoir based on
available data from the USFWS, CROW, and CNHP.
Least Tern (Interior Population)
The historical range of the interior population of least terns extends from Texas to North
Dakota. In northeast Colorado, the birds are casual to very rare fall and spring migrants. They
are typically casual non-breeding visitors to sites along the South Platte River although a historic
breeding site in northeast Colorado has been recorded (Andrews and Righter 1992). There are
•
4
BiologicalArsesvnent
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
several breeding sites in the Arkansas Valley in southeastern Colorado. During migration, they
are found at reservoirs, lakes, and rivers with bare, sandy shorelines.
Least terns tend to nest on sandy substrates such as sandbars and the sandy shorelines of lakes
and rivers. Its breeding range includes most of the major waterways throughout the Midwest. In
1949, one flock of least terns successfully bred in Washington County, Colorado (Andrews and
Righter 1992). Decline of the species has been attributed to loss and degradation of riverine
sandbar habitat (USFWS 1986). Disturbances from ATVs, hikers, and pets also have been known
to disturb nesting least terns.
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of least terns in the project area. There are
no known observations of least terns at Milton Reservoir based on available data from the
USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP.
Piping Plover
The piping plover occurs on mudflats and shorelines of reservoirs and lakes. The birds prefer
large sandy beaches with little vegetation (Faanes 1983). The plover forages on these beaches,
probing for invertebrates beneath the surface (Terres 1980). Population declines have been
attributed partially to the losses of beaches and sandbars due to vegetation encroachment and
changes in flows from dam construction(USFWS 1981).
This migratory species winters in the southern United States and nests in Canada and the
northern United States, including the Northern Great Plains. In Colorado, the bird is a very rare
spring and fall migrant with most observations occurring along the South Platte and Arkansas
River drainages (Andrews and Righter 1992). The birds nest from late March to August
(USFWS 1986). Piping plovers may nest within least tern colonies, since they both require similar
habitat. In Colorado,breeding populations have been found at two reservoirs in the eastern
plains. No surveys have been conducted for the presence of piping plovers in the project area.
There are no known observations of piping plovers at Milton Reservoir based on available data _
from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP.
r•
S
c
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Candidate Species
White-faced Ibis
This shorebird occurs in wet meadows, along marsh edges, and along reservoir shorelines.
They feed on insects, tadpoles, small fish, and other small prey inhabiting shallow water. Ibis
place their nests on reeds and other tall vegetation (Wassink 1991). The nests are generally found
in vegetation close to irregular channels of open water. Although adult ibis are somewhat tolerant
of human disturbance, they tend to nest where disturbances are unlikely.
In Colorado, the white-faced ibis migrates through the South Platte and other river valleys in
the spring. Breeding occurs less often in Colorado, with the main breeding population in the San
Luis Valley. However, a nesting pair was observed in 1979 at Lithium Reservoir, Weld County
(Andrews and Righter 1992). No surveys have been conducted for the presence of white-faced
ibis in the project area. There are no known observances of white-faced ibis at Milton Reservoir
based on available data from the USFWS, CDOW and CNHP. White-faced ibis have been
observed at wetland locations south ofMilton Reservoir (Ryder 1996).
Mountain Plover
The mountain plover prefers level prairies dominated by very short grasses such as blue grama •
and buffalo grass. These short grass habitats frequently are found in areas intensely grazed by
livestock, or in prairie-dog towns. The intensive vegetation clipping by ungulate and prairie dog
grazing improves nesting conditions for mountain plovers. Areas with tall grasses, hillsides or any
other objects that block this small bird's view are avoided. Most of the uplands at the Beebe
Draw Farms site are mid and tallgrass sandhill prairie species.
Historically, mountain plovers were a fairly common summer resident on the eastern plains of
Colorado with breeding populations found in many northern Front Range counties. However,
since the loss of the large buffalo herds and the conversion of prairies to farmlands, populations of
this bird have severely declined. In Colorado, northern Weld County contained almost two-thirds
of the mountain plovers counted in 1991 (Andrews and Righter 1992).
•
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Raidenhal Development mid Equestrian Center
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of mountain plovers in the project area.
There is no known observations of mountain plovers near the proposed Beebe Draw Farms
development site based on available data from the USFWS, CDOW, or CNHP.
Black Tern
These black birds with gray wings are found in marshes with abundant emergent vegetation.
The shallow, cup-shaped nests are built on cattails or other tall reeds, or on top of muskrat dens
(Wassink 1991). The historical range of the black tern extends over most of the United States,
with the breeding range located mainly in the northern states and in the prairie provinces of
Canada. In the past, some breeding occurred in Colorado; however, the primary nesting area was
north of the state (Stoecker 1996). Populations have been declining throughout its former range,
probably because of loss of habitat and perhaps pesticide use. The bird still migrates through
Colorado especially in the spring, but breeding occurs rarely(Andrews and Righter 1992).
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of black terns in the project area. No black
tern sightings have been reported at the proposed Beebe Draw Farm development site based on
• available data from the USFWS, CROW, and CNHP. Black terns have been observed at wetland
locations south of Milton Reservoir(Ryder 1996).
Ferruginous Hawk
These large raptors have dark legs that form a"V" against the lighter-colored belly(Wassink
1991). On the eastern plains, they occur in the grasslands where they usually hunt for prairie
dogs. Colorado is one of the main wintering grounds for this species, second only to Arizona.
The ferruginous hawk less commonly remains in Colorado through the summer. When breeding
does occur, large stick nests are built in isolated trees, rock outcrops, and man-made structures
such as windmills. Although still common in some areas, populations of ferruginous hawks have
declined in other portions of their range (Andrews and Righter 1992).
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of ferruginous hawks in the project area.
There is no known observations of these hawks near the proposed Beebe Draw Farms
development site based on available data from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP. The proposed
• development site does not support prairie dogs, an important prey base for ferruginous hawks.
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Western Snowy Plover
Snowy plovers migrate through Colorado in spring and fall with some birds staying to nest in
the summer. Although uncommon, the largest concentrations of migratory birds occur along the IP
South Platte and Arkansas drainages on the eastern plains where they occupy mudflats and sandy
shorelines. During the summer, the birds nest on alkali flats around reservoirs. Human
disturbance from intense recreational use(from studies in coastal areas) has reduced nesting
productivity. Most breeding populations occur in southeastern Colorado with some records in the
San Luis Valley (Andrews and Righter 1992).
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of western snowy plovers in the project
area. There are no known observations of western snowy plovers at Milton Reservoir based on
available data from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP.
Loggerhead Shrike
This small gray, white, and black bird has a large hooked beak for capturing mice, insects, and
other small prey. They are found in open riparian areas, grasslands, agricultural lands, and
shrublands. Loggerhead shrikes migrate through the eastern plains of Colorado in spring and fall
and also are summer residents. During the winter, they are rarely found on the eastern plains. •
They nest near isolated trees or large shrubs (Andrews and Righter 1992). Population declines
have occurred throughout this bird's range.
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of loggerhead shrikes in the project area.
They have been observed on the west side of Milton Reservoir near the gun club (Ryder 1996).
Baird's Sparrow
This plains species has been reported only a few times in Colorado. Baird's sparrow usually
occurs in native grasslands although it has rarely been sighted in weedy areas and plowed fields
(Andrews and Righter 1992).
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of Baird's sparrow in the project area.
There are no known observations of this bird near the proposed Beebe Draw Farms development
site based on available data from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNAP.
•
•
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Pants Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Treble's Meadow Jumping Mouse
The Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a local subspecies of the widespread meadow jumping
mouse. The Preble's mouse occurs in areas below 7,400 feet along the Front Range of Colorado
and Wyoming within the flood plains in the South Platte,North Platte, Arkansas, and Lodgepole
Creek River drainages. This rare and little-studied mouse apparently prefers dense undergrowth
in wet meadows and riparian corridors. This species is active during spring and summer, and the
USFWS requests that surveys occur from May 31 to September 1 (USFWS 1995). This Ice Age
relict may have once been widespread in tallgrass prairies across the eastern plains but now is
found in only a few isolated localities. The practice of converting natural wetlands into irrigation
reservoirs may have contributed to the decline of this species(Fitzgerald et al. 1994).
No surveys have been conducted for the presence of Preble's meadow jumping mouse in the
project area. There is no known observation of this mouse near the proposed Beebe Draw Farms
development site based on data from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP. The project site is
isolated from the South Platte River flood plain except for the Platte Valley Canal.
v Fringed-tailed Myotis
This bat has only occasionally been recorded in Colorado, and not much is known about this
species in the state. It occurs in coniferous woodlands and shrublands at elevations of
approximately 7,500 feet. The bat uses caves, mines, and buildings for day and night roosts
(Fitzgerald et al. 1994).
No surveys were conducted to determine the presence of fringed-tailed myotis in the project
area. There is no known observations of the fringed-tailed myotis near the proposed Beebe Draw
Farms development site according to available data from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP. The
proposed project occurs below 7,500 feet and does not support coniferous woodlands.
Swift Fox
This small, slender fox occurs in short grass and mid grass prairies throughout the Great
Plains. In northeastern Colorado, it prefers relatively flat plains where soils are not too sandy.
The dens are located in flat, open areas where visibility is unobstructed and short blue grama and
S
9
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
buffalo grass are the dominant vegetation. The proposed project sites occurs in areas of rolling
hills of sandy soils dominated by tall grasses.
Throughout much of its North American range, the swift fox was extirpated because of
poisoning and trapping activities mainly aimed at wolves and coyotes. Although populations in
Colorado never became extremely low, swift foxes did experience a decline in numbers in the
state. Currently, relatively dense populations have been recorded in some areas on the eastern
plains (Fitzgerald et al. 1994).
No surveys were conducted to determine the presence of the swift fox in the project area.
There are no known observations of swift foxes at the proposed Beebe Draw Farms development
site based on available data from the USFWS, CDOW, and CNHP.
Regal Fritillary Butterfly
This butterfly occurs in wet meadows and remnant tallgrass prairies in eastern Colorado. The
larva feed on violets in these habitats. The species has declined with no populations found along
the Front Range in 20 years. The largest existing populations in Colorado occur along the South
Platte River in the extreme northeast corner of the state(Opler 1995).
•
No surveys have been conducted to determine the presence of the regal fritillary butterfly in
the project area. There is no known observations of the regal fritillary butterfly on the proposed
Beebe Draw Farms development site based on available data from the USFWS, CDOW, and
CNHP.
Colorado Butterflyweed
This tall, pink-flowered plant blooms from July to September. It prefers moist meadows in
the transition zone between wet stream bottoms and rich flood plain areas. Historically, the
Colorado butterflyweed occurred along the Front Range from Castle Rock, Colorado to
Cheyenne, Wyoming. However, much of the moist meadow habitat has been converted into
agricultural land and urban development. Colorado butterflyweed has not been found in Colorado
recently although a few populations have been discovered in southeastern Wyoming and western
Nebraska(CONPS 1989;McKee 1996). No known populations of this plant have been recorded
near the proposed Beebe Draw Farms development site according to data from the USFWS, •
10
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
CDOW, and CNHP. Colorado butterflyweed was not observed during field surveys of potential
habitat in the project area.
Showy Prairie Gentian
The showy prairie gentian has bright 2-inch diameter purple flowers forming clusters at the
top of the plant, which are very distinctive (CONPS 1989). It grows along streams, in wet
meadows or along margins of lakes and ponds, often in moist sandy alkaline soil (CNHP 1996).
Historically, the showy prairie gentian occurred in the western half of the Great Plains, including
Colorado. This species is now rare throughout much of its former range due to conversion of its
habitat to agricultural lands, aggregate mining, and urbanization (CONPS 1989). Collecting this
beautiful flower is another threat to this species (Weber 1990). The showy prairie gentian has
been recorded near, but not on the proposed Beebe Draw Farms development site (CNHP 1996).
No individuals of this plant were observed during the wetland delineation or survey for Ute
ladies'-tresses orchid.
Methods of Impact Assessment
The potential effects on threatened, endangered and candidate species were evaluated for this
project based on-
1. The occurrence of potential habitat for each species at the proposed Beebe Draw Palms
development site.
2. The known occurrence of each species at the proposed project site.
3. Elements of the proposed development.
4. Environmental commitments that would minimize adverse effects.
Impact Assessment
Bald Eagle .. -
The proposed project may affect bald eagles. These birds have been observed roosting and
feeding at Milton Reservoir during the winter, especially in the cottonwoods along the shoreline
and along the Platte Valley Canal (Stoecker 1996). An important area for the eagles appears to
be the peninsula in Section 15 because the secluded area has large trees for the eagles and
excellent habitat for the eagle's prey, waterfowl. The birds have not been observed using one
11
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
particular tree or area but have been observed in various cottonwoods. The proposed project
could affect bald eagles as follows-
1. Increasing human activity could disturb the bird's roosting or hunting activities. Bald
eagles are susceptible to disturbance especially at their communal night roosts and feeding
areas. A buffer zone is recommended for human activities other than light recreational
activities such as hiking, especially if the eagles have a clear line-of-sight of these activities
(USFWS 1983). Sound is an important characteristic of human disturbance with eagles.
Research indicates quiet canoes may approach within 165 feet of eagles before eliciting a
response; eagles tolerate motorized vehicles to within 330 feet before responding (Grub,
et al. 1992). Depending on local circumstances, disturbance to eagles at roost or nest sites
may result from disturbances over 100 yards away. These sites can be very sensitive.
To minimize potential impacts, the District has agreed to the following environmental
commitments, which are included in Section V of the Environmental Assessment (MOA,
Appendix A):
. No development will occur in Section 15, and the area will be designated a wildlife
refuge. All recreational activities will be excluded from the peninsula
. Establishment of a buffer zone and setbacks along the Platte Valley Canal riparian
area and reservoir shoreline(Section V of EA).
. Human disturbance from vehicles and pets will be kept to a minimum.
. Motorized boats greater than 5 hp will not be permitted on Milton Reservoir.
. Covenants or use rules will preclude use of the lake shoreline except at the beach
and recreation facility.
These actions are designed to lesson potential impacts from development on the bald eagle
population. However some of the eagles may be disturbed enough by humans to
discontinue using the area.
2. Reduction of the prey base could adversely affect the eagles, which probably feed on
waterfowl using Milton Reservoir. District drainage plans have been designed to minimize
water quality degradation that may adversely affect waterfowl populations. Additionally,
the buffer and setbacks should minimize pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers from
adversely affecting the reservoir and its wildlife.
3. Destruction of cottonwoods would be detrimental to the bald eagles. The development
plans to remove a few trees near the small boat harbor. This minimal removal should not
adversely affect the eagles.
Activities associated with the proposed development may affect current use of the site by bald
eagles; however, the environmental commitments developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Colorado Division of Wildlife should diminish adverse effects on bald
eagles.
•
12
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid
The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect Ute ladies'-tresses orchid. There are no
natural perennial drainages in the project area and isolated wetlands provide the only potential
habitat. These sites were field-surveyed and the orchid was not found. The areas of potential
habitat are within protected buffer zones that would not be disturbed by development.
Whooping Crane
This project is not expected to adversely affect the whooping crane. No birds have been
observed at Milton Reservoir and the main migration route further east in Nebraska is well
documented. As no nesting has historically occurred in the area, only accidental migrants would
possibly use the reservoir for a temporary stopover. The few sightings of the whopping crane in
Weld County have mostly been along the South Platte River. Potential habitat for whooping
crane stopovers near the proposed project includes Milton Reservoir's sandy shoreline, which is
protected from construction and would have restricted use per environmental commitments.
Least Tern (Interior Population)
The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the least tern. Although this bird has
not been observed at Milton Reservoir, the bird has historically nested in the region and potential
habitat exists along the reservoir's sandy shores. Disturbance to shoreline habitat would be
minimal, except for dredging the marina. The reservoir shoreline will be protected by buffer and
setback zones that prevent structures along the shore. The District's environmental commitments
restrict shoreline use, and state that ATVs or other motorized vehicles will not be allowed along
the shoreline and that pets will be kept under the owner's control at all times.
Piping Plover
Similar to the previous discussion for the least tern, the project is not expected to adversely
affect the piping plover. Although this bird has not been observed at Milton Reservoir, there is
potential nesting habitat along the reservoir's sandy shores. Most of this habitat will not be
disturbed by construction of the proposed development. Protected setbacks and other
environmental commitments (as discussed for the least tern)also apply.
13
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Candidate Species
White-faced This
410
The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the white-faced ibis. This species has
been observed in wetlands south of Milton Reservoir. In the project area, potential habitat exists
in the marshy areas along the Platte Valley Canal. The small marshes in the sandhills depressions
also could provide foraging areas for the ibis.
The environmental commitments agreed to by the District provide buffer and setback zones
around the proposed development's portion of Platte Valley Canal and Milton Reservoir, which
should minimize potential disturbance to any white-faced ill>is that may use the area. The marshes
in the sandhills depressions occur in the planned undeveloped area north of the reservoir and
would not be directly disturbed. Additionally, a 100-foot buffer would be established around
these wetland areas.
Mountain Plover
Construction on the sandhills prairie is unlikely to adversely affect mountain plovers. No
mountain plovers have been recorded in the area. Most of the site's grasslands are dominated by
tall grasses, which is not the preferred habitat for these birds. Much of the area is too densely •
vegetated with sand sage(Artemesia filifolia) and taller grasses to be considered potential
mountain plover habitat.
Black Tern
The proposed project may affect black terns. Although no observations of the birds have been
recorded at Milton Reservoir, potential habitat exists in the marshy areas along the Platte Valley
Canal, the reservoir, and in the isolated sandhills depressions. Black terns have been recorded in
wetlands south of Milton Reservoir outside the project area. The District has committed to buffer
and setback zones around the proposed development's portion of Platte Valley Canal and Milton
Reservoir. The area containing the sandhills wetland depressions will not be developed and
buffers would be established around the wetlands, which should minimize potential disturbance to
black terns that may use these marshes.
14
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Ferruginous Hawk
41110 The proposed project is unlikely to affect ferruginous hawks. No ferruginous hawks have
been reported in the area and the site does not support prairie dogs, an important prey.
Western Snowy Plover
The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the western snowy plover. Although this
bird has not been observed at Milton Reservoir, potential habitat exists along the reservoir's alkali
mudflats. Most of this habitat will not be disturbed by proposed construction, except for dredging
the marina. The shoreline would be protected by buffer and setback zones that prevent structures
along the shore, restrictions on ATVs or other motorized vehicles, shoreline use restrictions, and
controls on pets.
Loggerhead Shrike
The proposed project may affect loggerhead shrikes. Loggerhead shrikes have been observed
west of Milton Reservoir near the project area. Most suitable nest sites are located within
protected buffer zones.
Baird's sparrow
The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect Baird's sparrows. Potential habitat
exists in the native prairie areas of Beebe Draw. No observations of Baird's sparrows have been
recorded in the area. Construction of homes and related facilities would disturb areas of native
grassland, but over 60 percent of the area would remain in open space with no change in existing
vegetation. Potential habitat for Baird's sparrow would remain within the project area.
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse
The proposed project may affect Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Brrat,e of the poorly
developed riparian habitats on the Beebe Draw Farms site, the probability that Preble's jumping
mice are present is rather low. The most suitable habitat for the mouse occurs along the Platte
Valley Canal, which will be protected from development by buffer and setback zones.
S
15
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Fringed-Tailed Myotis
The project would have no affect on the fringed-tailed myotis. Beebe Draw does not contain
the bat's coniferous woodland and shrubland habitat.
Swift Fox
The swift fox is unlikely to be adversely affected by this project. The fox has not been
observed at Beebe Draw. Small areas of short grass prairie habitat suitable for the swift fox exist
at Beebe Draw, although the area is likely too sandy, and the area of shortgrass prairie too small
to be considered potentially suitable habitat for the swift fox.
Regal Fritillary Butterfly
The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect this species. The regal fritillary
butterfly has not been recorded in the area, and only small, isolated areas of wet meadow habitat
exist at the site. Potential butterfly habitat occurs around the sandhill depressions, which would
not be disturbed.
Colorado Butterflyweed
The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect any potential populations of the
Colorado butterflyweed. This species was not observed at the Beebe Draw Farms site during
field surveys, although potential habitat may exist in the transition zone between the prairie and
the wetlands along the Platte Valley Canal. Potential habitat would be protected by the buffer and
setback zones.
Showy Prairie Gentian
The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect this species. No populations were
discovered during field surveys of suitable wetland habitat at Beebe Draw. The showy prairie
gentian has been found nearby at off-project locations (CNHP 1996). Potential habitat occurs in
the alkaline depressions that would be protected with 100-foot buffer zones.
Conclusion
Of the 17 species reviewed, only the bald eagle is known to use the site. The proposed Beebe
Draw Farms and Equestrian Center development may directly affect wintering populations of bald ---
•
16
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
eagles and the potential habitat of other species through increased human activities around Milton
4110 Reservoir. Black terns, white-faced ibis and Preble's meadow jumping mouse also may be
affected by the proposed development. Other threatened, endangered, and candidate species are
unlikely to be affected by the project. To minimize the effects from potential development,the
District has agreed to environmental commitments that protect areas with high quality wildlife
habitat. These commitments, presented in the Environmental Assessment, should lessen the
potential impacts to species that use Milton Reservoir, Platte Valley Canal, and adjacent
shorelines.
Citations
Anderson, R. 1982. On the decreasing abundance ofNicrophus americanus Olivier (Coleoptera:
Silphidae) in eastern North America. The Colleopterists Bulletin 36(2).
Andrews,R. and R Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. 442 pp.
Arft, A. M. 1994. "The Genetics, Ecology, and Conservation Management of the Rare Orchid
"Spiranthes diluvialis" in Aquilegia 18(2):1-4. Colorado Native Plant Society. Fort Collins,
Colorado
Bailey,RM. and F.B. Cross A.M. 1954. River sturgeons of the American genus Scaphirhychus:
Characters, distribution and synonymy. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and
Letters 39:169-208.
Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin
146:236-246.
Bruner,L.,R.H. Wolcott, and M.H. Swenk 1904. A Preliminary Review of the Birds of
Nebraska. Klopp and Bartlett Co., Omaha,Nebraska, 116 pp.
Campbell, J.B. 1972. Reproduction and transformation of boreal toads in the Colorado From
Range. Journal Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science 7:114.
Colorado Native Plant Society(CONPS). 1989. Rare plants of Colorado. Rocky Mountain
Nature Association, Colorado Native Plant Society. 73 pp.
Colorado Native Plant Society(CONPS). 1994. "Spiranthes diluvialis range extended!"in
Aquilegia 18(2):5. Colorado Native Plant Society. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program(CNHP). 1993. Database search for locations and status
information for significant natural communities and rare, threatened or endangered species
known from the Central City/Black Hawk area. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Boulder,
Colorado.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1996. Letter to ERO Resources.
Cooper, D.J. 1993. Wetland delineation in Chase Gulch, Gilpin County, Colorado.
17
Biological Assessment
Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center
Coyner, J. 1990. Report for population study Spiranthes diluvialis.
Craig, J. March, 1996. Personal Communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins,
Colorado. IMO
Earth Info Inc. 1995. National climatic data centers summary of the day.
Faanes, C. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central
Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 15(4):145-54.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final Environmental
Assessment for Hydropower License. Georgetown Hydrological Project. 95 pp. +appendices.
Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meany, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver
Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp.
Garza, B. March, 1996. Personal Communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Golden,
Colorado.
Grubb, T.,Bowerman, W., Giesy, J and Dawson, G. 1992. Responses of Breeding Bald Eagles,
Haliaeetus leucocephalis, to Human Activities in Northcentral Michigan. The Canadian Field-
Naturalist. 106:443-453.
Hammerson, G.A. 1986. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Denver. 131 pp.
Hammerson, G.A. and D. Langlois (eds.). 1981. Colorado reptile and amphibian distribution
latilong study. 2nd Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife,Denver. 24 pp.
Harrison&Boyles. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;Determination of
Threatened Status for Eastern and Western Prairie Fringed Orchids. Federal Register 54(187). •
p 39857-39862.
Jennings, W.F. 1990. Final report. Species studies: Spiranthes diluvialis, Sisyrinchium
pallidum. Unpublished report prepared for the Nature Conservancy under the Colorado
Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO. 29 pp.
Kingery, H.E. and MB. Dillon (eds.). 1987. Colorado bird distribution latilong study. Colorado
Division of Wildlife,Denver. 81 pp. +appendices.
Livo,L.J. 1995. Amphibian surveys in Boulder, Clear Creek, and Gilpin Counties, Colorado,
1994. in Cooperation with Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service. 85 pp.
McKee, J. June, 1996. USFWS. Personal communication.
Opler, P. June, 1995. Personal communication.
Ryder,Ron. 1996. Professor Emeritus. Colorado State University. Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Personal communication.
Stoecker, B. 1996. Preliminary Wildlife Investigation for the Beebe Farms Site. Prepared for
ERO Resources.
Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A
Knopf New York. 1109 pp.
•
18
Biological Assessment
.-Beebe:Draw Fmms Rrtidrntinl.Devrlopmentand, Mestr an Center
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Central City Water Development Project Environmental
Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. The Platte River Ecological Study. Special Res.
Rep. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown,North Dakota. 187 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983. Bald Eagle (Northern States)Recovery Plan.
USFWS. 69 pp with appendices.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (TJSFWS). 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Interior Population of the Least Tern Determined to be Endangered. Federal Register Volume
5, 102:21784-21790.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. Vol.
11,No. 1, p. 3.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery plan
(Rocky Mountain/ Southwest population). Prepared in cooperation with the American
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 105 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Survey guidelines for Spiranthes diluvialis.
Golden, Colorado.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Proposed Category and Listing Priority
Assignment Form for the Sturgeon Chub -Draft. Lead Field Office-USF&WS Bismarck,
North Dakota. 4 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Interim Survey Guidelines for Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Golden, Colorado.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Status Report on Platanthera praeclara Sheviak
&Bowles (Western Prairie Fringed Orchid) in Kansas,Nebraska, and South Dakota. Prepared
by Kansas Biological Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Denver, Colorado. 71 pp.
Wassink, J. 1991. Birds of the Central Rockies. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula
Montana.
Weber, W. 1990. Colorado Flora of the Eastern Slope. University of Colorado Press. Niwot,
Colorado. 394 pp.
19
Appendix E
Biological Opinion
r
r
IP
I,-,0- 11l14-+►
lFISHUnited States Department of the Interior
IP
� .-
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . -----__-----
Ecological Services : i
Fr-- . 3N
ColoradoF� refit 1
P.O.Box 25486 , 1_r.,
Deaver Federal Cos Deaver,Colorado 80225-0207
i
f
ES/G1-6-00-917-F-002ES/G1-6-00-917-F-0021991
COMS/NFJUTntR 4E8 13 __--
' �"° `
MEMORANDUM
TO: Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Eastern Colorado
Area Office, Loveland, Colorado
FROM: Field Supervisor, Ecological Services
SUBJECT: Final Biological Opinion for Beebe w F Residen Develop entm and
Equestrian Center- Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District (District) - Colorado-Big
Thompson Project
WI
In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this is the
Fish and Wildlife Service's final biological opinion for impacts to federally listed endangered
and threatened species associated with the inclusion of Beebe Draw Farms Residential
Development and Equestrian Center into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(NCWCD) Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) service area.
_The Service has reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation's Draft Environmental Assessment for
the Beebe Draw Farms Residential Development and Equestrian Center submitted to our
office on December 16, 1996. The Service concurs with Reclamation's determination that the
Beebe Draw Farms Residential and Equestrian Center 'may affect' the threatened bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalur). The Service also concurs with Reclamation that the Beebe Draw
Project is riot likely to adversely affect the endangered whooping crane (Gros americana) or
least tern (Sterna anrillarwn), or the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and Ute
1.2(4i-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). In the Biological An escment, Reclamation also
addressed several candidate species, however, this biological opinion addresses only those
species which are federally listed as endangered or threatened.
,----
10
t
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 2
S
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
This biological opinion is based on information regarding cumulative effects, conditions forming
the environmental baseline, the status of the bald eagle, and the importance of the project area to
the survival and recovery of this species. The data used in preparation of this opinion constitutes
the best scientific and commercial information currently available.
The Service's biological opinion is that neither the direct nor indirect effects of the proposed
project as described below, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle.
Although the project will likely adversely affect bald eagle use of Milton Reservoir, the
implementation of conservation recommendations agreed to during consultation and outlined in this
opinion will avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the species.
•
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The District is seeking inclusion within the NCWCD C-BT service area. This will allow the
NCWCD to provide water service to Beebe Draw Farms by intergovernmental agreement. Federal
and NCWCD rules require that lands receiving water from the C-BT project must be included es
within NCWCD service area boundaries. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is required to mir
approve any inclusion of lands using C-BT water according to the terms of the master repayment
contract with NCWCD. As a result, the proposed Beebe Draw Farms Project is considered a
federal action, which requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
Endangered Species Act (ESA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and other federal
laws. The purpose of the proposed action is to have the Beebe Draw Farms property included
within the water service area of the NCWCD so that the Project would be eligible to receive C-BT
water. This water is needed to achieve Project objectives, which include serving an 800-home
residential community. There would be no increase in west slope diversions of C-BT project water
as a result of this action.
The District would secure water for meeting development needs by purchasing shares of C-BT
water. C-BT shares of water would be transferred to the CWCWD, who would provide treated
water to the District by intergovernmental agreement. C-BT water shares are readily available for
purchase and provide a dependable source of high quality water at a reasonable cost.
The proposed Beebe Draw Farms project consists of approximately 3,500 acres of land located in
southwest Weld County, Colorado, approximately 6 miles east of Platteville and 9 miles south of
Greeley. The District would provide various public services to a population of about 2,000
2 •
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 3
•
permanent residents living in 800 single-family residences covering about 2,000 acres. The
proposed development would offer residents a complete 400-acre Olympic caliber equestrian
center, various water recreational facilities on Milton Reservoir, and about 1,700 acres of greenbelt
areas with over 40 miles of hiking, riding, and training trails. The Project would be completed in
three phases over the next 5 to 10 years
The Beebe Draw Farms project includes approximately 3,500 acres in the Planned Unit
Development area. There are an additional 2,285 acres that are leased from the Farmers
Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO), bringing the total Project area to 5,755 acres/ The
leased land contains Milton Reservoir (approximately 800 surface acres of water) and a buffer
perimeter around the reservoir. A small boat harbor would be developed on the leased land, but
no building would be constructed.
STATUS OF SPECIES
Bald Eagle
• The bald eagle was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 F.R. 4001). Many
factors affected the decline of this species including human persecution, prey reduction, habitat
loss, and impaired reproduction caused by environmental contaminants especially dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloro-ethane (DDT). Since the banning of DDT and intensive protection efforts, bale
eagle populations and the number of occupied nesting territories have increased throughout much
of the United States over the past two decades. As a result, the Service reclassified the bald eagle
from endangered to threatened throughout its range in the lower 48 States on July 12, 1995 (60
F.R. 36000).
Bald eagles are often found in association with open water along seacoasts, large lakes, and rivers.
Their diet consists largely of fish and waterfowl, but also includes upland birds, small mammals,
and carrion. Along Colorado's Front Range, prairie dogs represent the largest portion of the
eagles' winter diet (Colorado Bird Observatory 1994, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Bald
eagles are skilled hunters, but also have been observed stealing prey captured by other raptors
Colorado is a popular wintering area for bald eagles (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992,
Harrnata 1984). In 1993-1994, 1,235 bald eagles were counted by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife during midwinter counts (Colorado Bird Observatory 1994). Midwinter counts around
Milton Reservoir in 1990's showed as few as none and as many as 8 bald eagles using Milton
Reservoir. Although there are no records of eagles attempting to nest in the vicinity of the
• 3
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 4
•
reservoir, the presence of old growth cottonwoods and a heronry close by provide the ingredients
for a pair of eagles to nest there in the future, providing that human disturbance does not encroach
on potential nesting areas (CDOW, 1996).
Survival of individual eagles, particularly those in their first year of life, probably depends heavily
on conditions they encounter during the wintering period. The physiological condition of adults at
the beginning of each breeding season, an important factor influencing reproductive success, is also
affected by how well their energy demands are met in wintering areas. Thus, the survival and
recovery of nesting populations depend on eagles having suitable wintering areas with an adequate
prey base (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). During the primary wintering period of
December to March, suitable roosting and foraging habitat is important to eagles (U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1992, Harmata 1984, Stalmaster et al. 1979, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1983).
Further information about the biology and status of the bald eagle can be found in the Northern
States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983b and Appendix C of this
biological opinion.
EFFECTS OF ACTION •
Bald Eagle
The proposed Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian Center development may directly affect wintering
bald eagles through increased human activities around Milton Reservoir. The District has agreed
to the conservation measures outlined in this biological opinion should lessen the impacts of the
development on bald eagles that use Milton Reservoir. However, disturbance to eagles is expected
because of the additional recreational activities around the reservoir.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to minimize adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project, the Beebe
Draw Farms Metropolitan District has agreed to environmental commitments and conservation
recommendations to address potential impacts to bald eagles. The following are all of the
environmental commitments agreed to by the District
4 •
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 5
Vehicles
No motorized vehicles (other than maintenance vehicles) will be allowed off roads or
driveways. This specifically includes motor bikes, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, and all
recreation off-road vehicles.
Fences
Perimeter fencing of homesites or lots will be limited to a maximum of 5 percent of the
total lot area adjacent to or around the main dwelling and parking areas. Up to an
additional 5 percent of the lot area may be fenced for a corral or paddock. Horses on the
property must be kept in a fenced area.
Animals
Dogs and cats must be kept under the owner's control at all times. The number of horses
and domestic pets shall be in accordance with Weld County regulations.
Grazing of homesites, trails or greenbelt will not be permitted. Only one horse per acre or
fraction shall be kept on any lot. Any animals kept on the lot must be in the corral.
Landscaping
Within six months of the completion of the main dwelling, a minimum of 15 trees shall be
planted on the log (ten evergreen, of which five are at least 5 feet in height; and five
deciduous, of which two are at least 10 feet in height). Irrigated landscaping will be
limited to an area no greater than 5 percent of the lot adjacent to the house. The remaining
lot area and common areas will be maintained in vegetation native to the area or that
occurred onsite prior to development. Removal of rock, topsoil, plant material or similar
items from common areas will not be permitted.
Wildlife Habitat lighters and Setbacks
Federal and state agencies identified several important wildlife habitats near or adjacent to
the proposed development (see USFWS, Planning Aid Memorandum, Appendix A of this
biological opinion). Buffers and setbacks were developed in consultation with the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife as described in Section
V.E. and Figure 2 of the Environmental Assessment.
No Development Area
No development will occur in Section 15 associated with the Beebe Draw Farms project or
the District. The peninsula in Section 15 will be designated a wildlife refuge with signage
indicating its status and rags restrictions.
5
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 6
Hunting
No hunting will be permitted within the development, except as provided by the least for
waterfowl hunting on Milton Reservoir.
Wetlands
No new construction will be permitted in wetlands or any area within 100 feet of wetlands.
Maintenance of existing facilities in wetlands or within 100 feet of wetlands will be
allowed.
Boating and Boat Harbor
Boating and the boat harbor will operate under the following restrictions:
1. Motorized boats greater than 5 hp will not be permitted on Milton Reservoir.
2. There will be no surface water connection directly between the harbor and
the riparian/backwater zone to the north.
3. Fueling concessions or operations will not be permitted on the reservoir.
4. Development associated with the small boat harbor will be limited to the
immrdiatP harbor shoreline.
5. Construction of the small boat harbor and its inlet will minimize removal of --
trees and other native vegetation
6. Access from Milton Reservoir to the shore, and from the shore to the
Reservoir, will be prohibited except at the boat harbor and beach area. •
These environmental commitments are addressed in covenants that have been filed with Weld
County, a Planning Aid Memorandum (Appendix A of this opinion).and a Memorandum of
Agreement (Appendix B of this opinion) signed by the District, RII Limited Liability Company,
and Reclamation.
Those restrictions that limit the use of individual logs generally will be filed with the County as
restrictive covenants running with the land or plat restrictions limiting the use of the land. All
other restrictions that limit the use of the riparian corridor, wetlands, and open space areas owned
or controlled by the District, unlike the development company and individual property owner, has
continuing existence as a political subdivision of the state and will be available over the years to
enforce the contractual terms and cooperate with federal and state agencies.
6 .�
ralk
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 7
REFERENCES
Colorado Bird Observatory. 1994. Preliminary report on the behavioral ecology and habitat use of
the Standley Lake bald eagle pair October 16 through December 31, 1993. Preliminary
report, Colorado Bird Observatory,Brighton, Colorado. 20 pp.
Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW). 1996. Jerry Craig personal communication.
Harmata, A R 1984. Bald eagles of the San Luis Valley, Colorado: their winter ecology and
spring migration. Ph.D. Thesis,Montana State University. 222 pp.
Stalmaster, M. V., J. R. Newman and A. J. Hansen. 1979. Population dynamics of wintering bald
eagles on the Noodsak River, Washington. Northwest Scientist 53:126-131.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Northern states bald eagle recovery plan. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 76 pp.
s"-,
y
•
v
7
Bureau of Reclamation
Area Manager, Eastern Colorado, Page 8
Thank you for your cooperation in the formulation of this biological opinion and your interest in
conserving endangered species.
cc: ES/State Supervisor
CDOW/Northeast Region ( Attn: Kari Doerr/Courtney Crawford)
COE/hi-Lakes Office (Attn: Tim Carey and Sandra Laney)
EPA/Reg. 8, (Attn: Sarah Fowler)
Beebe Draw Metropolitan District (Attn: James Fell)
ERO Resources (Attn: Steve Dougherty)
bcc: AES/TE, Washington, D.C.
FWS/CO/KS/NE/UT, Denver
FWS/ES, Grand Junction
FWS/ES, Lakewood
RO rf, RD rf
COKANUT
P1b DR/Beebe Draw J
Reeding File
COICANUT:McKee: Caasutu\BBBO.cml: 02/10/97
8
Appendix F
Response to Comments
r-�
` .J
JW1-66-199r 16121 TOR L0.w 9796633212 P.02,02
DEPARTMENT OF THE Miter
7/410` CORPS OF ENGINEERS.OMAHA DISTRICT
_ Tm{ARES PROJECT OFF ICE.1001 STATE HWY III _. _.._ .
LITTLETON,COLORADO aut234t01 , I i.t•'WO.TII•
,wow 1.1 i:6:,..t
swam
Menthes-II, 1996 JEC,23 1 , .(•
Mr.Vie Odule(EC•1340) I/ss t0•Oct . -1
U.S.Depamew of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation •
.�..
Eastern Colorado Projects Unite •i._ 1
11036 West County Rod 19E . .�. _.. .._._)_-_-1
Loveland,Colorado 90137.9711 • j a) The dredging of the boat harbor In With Reservoir would resin in a small increase in
the available reservoir storage capacity. The original storage volume of Milton
• Reservoir has decreased substantially due to siltation. FRICO'a use of the reservoir is
Dear Mr.Odule: limited by decreed water storage rights end other flow through water rights.
This letter constitutes the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers comments regarding the
Draft Envhonmentel Assessment(EA)for the Beebe Draw Farina Residential Development •
end Equestrian Center. The Corps'review focused on section 404 of the Clean Water Act b) When and if■small boat harbor is constructed,it will comply with all applicable
and potential impacts to waten of the United States, Including wetlands. The following environmened requirements
comments are provided regarding the droll EA:
Section VI,paragraph 2,hes been revised hi the Final EA to reflect the change In the
a. In Section IV,H,Threatened and Endangered teeter.potential on-site
impacts to the whooping cram,least tern,and piping plover are addressed. Ills noted In the Corps nationwide permit program.
drift EA that development plans call for dredging•boat basin. Will this dredged basin I
increase the storage capacity of Milton Reservoir,thereby allowing FRICO to store and
utilize eddl onel water rights? If this occurs,the EA should address Irrgects to the above
referenced gleeles on the Phut River system due to increased depletions.
b. In Section VI,second paragraph, second to the last aemence,a reference Is
made to the Corps of Engineers'Nationwide Permit 26. On December IS, 1996,new
Nationwide Penoits,which take effect on February II, 1997,were issued and this permit
changed significantly. The Upper limit for use of this permit was reduced to 3 acres.
Potential tripods to waters of the United Sores addressed M the draft EA would now require
an individual Section 404 permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft EA and our of Ice looks forward to
reviewing the Final M. If you have any questions concerning the above comments,please
contact use at(303)979 120.
Sincerely,
Carey
Project anger
Prate=®.,.....
Tons P.02
1
Hello